ALVAW/S  BOOK  FVND 


.-••i 
VREMARKS 


AND 


CRITICISMS 


ON    THE 


ION.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS'S 


LETTER 


TO   TUB 


HON.  HARRISON  GRAY  OTIS 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED  BY  JOSHUA  GUSHING; 

No.  79,  State. Street* 
1808. 


A    / 

-       ' 


PREFACE, 


As  a  great  number  of  gentlemen  have  expressed  a  wish 
to  see  the  remarks  and  criticisms  on  the  Hon.  Mr.  ADAMS'S 
letter  republished  in  the  pamphlet  form,  the  following  compi 
lation  is  offered  to  the  publick,  taken  principally  from  the 
NEW- YORK  EVENING  POST. 

It  is  left  to  literary  men  to  decide  whether  the  Honourable 
Senator  has  not  been  overrated  as  a  scholar;  and  to  politi 
cians,  whether  he  has  not  disappointed  them  as  a  statesman. 

If  he  has  been  flattered,  admired  and  trusted  beyond  hit 
merit,  it  has  been  his  misfortune  ;  and  if  ail  is  now  left  tha* 
justly  belongs  to  him,  he  cannot  complain. 


w 

o 


REMARKS,  &e. 


WE  have  been  urged  to  take  notice  of  the  Letter  publish 
ed  by  Mr.  JOHN  QuiNCY  ADAMS,  but  our  attention  was  so 
much  occupied  by  the  election  as  to  put  it  out  of  our  power. 
We  hope  the  Honourable  Writer  will  forgive  this  involuntary 
neglect.  In  the  remarks  which  we  deem  it  proper  to  make, 
a  due  regard  shall  be  paid  to  his  double  character,  as  Profes 
sor  of  Rhetorick,  and  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  We  shall 
endeavour  to  avoid  saying  what  might  offend,  and  should 
there  be  a  semblance  of  asperity,  we  humbly  entreat  the  par 
don  of  the  Honourable  Senator  ;  confidently  expecting  that 
the  learned  Professor  will  excuse  us  for  being  seduced  from  the 
chastity  of  our  own  principles  by  the  influence  of  his  example. 

We  shall  divide  what  we  have  to  say  into  two  parts,  the 
first  of  which  shall  be  confined  to  the  Learned  Professo^and 
the  second  to  His  Honour  of  the  Senate.  It  may  be  supposed 
that  we  might  have  spared  the  first  half  of  our  labour  ;  but 
we  are  not  certain  that  Mr,  Adams  considers  his  manner  as 
less  worthy  of  notice  than  his  matter,  or  would  recommend 
to  our  imitation  his  conduct  more  strongly  than  his  style. 
Both  will  no  doubt  find  admirers;  for  already,  if  we  are  well 
informed,  this  specimen  of  reasoning  and  rhetorick  has  been 
circulated  with  no  common  industry.* 

He  who  thinks  only  of  the  present  hour,  or  the  present  ge 
neration,  omits  much  of  what  he  owes  to  his  country.  The 
true  patriot  will  not  be  unmindful  of  posterity.  In  the  hum 
ble  wish,  therefore,  to  serve  those  who  are  yet  at  school,  we 
shall  point  out  defects  of  style  in  this  extraordinary  letter, 

*  It  is  fiaid  that  Mr.  Adams's  party,  the  Jeffersonians,  have  boen  s»t  the 
trouble  and  rxpejiye  of  circulating  100,009  copies  throughout  the  Vnitefl 

jSf  af  os . 


[      2      3 

\vfnch,  like  the  spots  on  the  surface  of-the  sun,  if  they  do  rfo? 
clihiijii.;i>  the  l'i.';ht,  by  LQ  means  increase  the  splendour. 

Although' "the  number  may  appear  great,  it  might  have 
been  increased,  had  we  not  rejected  some  which  we  suppos 
ed  to  have  been  errours  of  the  press.  We  should  be  sorry  to 
impute  to  the  learned  Professor  the  follies  or  the  faults  of  a 
printer's  devil.  Still,  however,  it  is  possible  that  some  of  our 
remarks  ought  to  have  been  directed  towards  the  work  of  the 
latter.  But  as  the  defects  of  great  men  have  been  imitated, 
from  the  wry  neck  of  Alexander  downwards,  it  seemed  pro 
per  to  note  (by  way  of  caution)  those  deformities  which 
might  be  copied.  We  proceed  without  further  preiace  to  take 
them  up  in  course  nearly  as  they  stand. 

Evidently  the  Professor's  subject,  grave,  didactick,  and  ad 
dressed  to  the  people,  required  a  natural,  plain,  perspicuous, 
neat  style,  and  nothing  more ;  neither'demanding  ornament, 
nor  hardly  admitting  it.  Instead  of  this,  however,  he  has 
adopted  a  style  of  the  opposite  character;  inverted,  obscure, 
harsh,  and  turgid ;  glittering  with  far-fetched  and  sometimes 
with  false  figure's. 

It  is  well  observed  by  one  of  our  best  English  crjticks,  "that 
communication  of  thought  being  the  chief  end  of  language,  it 
is  a  rule  in  composition,  that  perspicuity  ought  not  to  be  sa 
crificed  to  any  other  beauty  whatever.  Nothing  in  language 
ought  to  be  more  studied  than  to  prevent  all  obscurity  in  the 
expression  ;  for  to  have  no  meaning  is  but  one  degree  worse 
than  to  have  a  meaning  that  is  not  understood."  Want  of 
perspicuity  may  proceed  from  a  wrong  choice  of  words,  or  a 
wrong  arrangement  of  them,  or  a  wrong  arrangement  of  the 
members  of  which  a  sentence  is  composed.  In  the  letter  be 
fore  us  we  shall  find  an  abundance  of  instances  of  a  want  of 
perspicuity  arising  from  one  or  other  of  all  these  causes. 

One  errour  against  perspicuity  is  the  giving  different  names 
to  the  same  object  mentioned  more  than  once. 

u  If  the  commercial  states  are  called  to  interpose  on  one 
**  hand,  will  not  the  agricultural  states  be  with  equal  propri- 
"  ety  summoned  to  interpose  on  the  other;  if  the  east  is  sti- 
"  mutated  against  the  west,  and  the  northern  and  southern 
"  sections  are  urged  into  collisions  with  each  other,  by  ap- 
«  peals,"  &c. 

Here  no  less  than  four  different  terms  are  employed  to  ex 
press  the  same  act  :  called,  summoned,  st i?nulated,  and  urg 
ed  into  collision. 

In  like  manner,  a  question  is  said  to  have  been  "  discussed 
inti  decided  in  the  Senate,"  to  have  "  obtained  the  concur- 


t    3     3 

rence  of  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature,"  and  "  the  ap* 
probation  of  the  president,"  and  then  that  "  from  these  deci 
sions,  the  letter  of  Mr.  Pickering  was  an  appeal,"  &c.  Near 
the  close  of  the  pamphlet  the  Professor  says,  a  To  yearn  for 
the  fragments  of  trade  would  be  to  pine  for  the  crumbs  of 
commercial  servitude."  In  the  course  of  four  pages,  Mr.  Pick 
ering's  Letter  is  called  by  more  than  a  dozen  different  names, 
It  is  anappeal,  aproceeding,  a  species  of  appeal,  an  invocation,  a 
representation,  a  statement,  an  admonition,  an  application,  an 
instigation,  a  one-sided  representation,  a  resort,  an  appellate 
legislation,  a  proclamation,  a  denunciation.  Ye  conundrum 
makers!  whose  labours  dignify  our  almanacks,  and  exercise 
the  ingenuity  of  children  and  servant  maids,  cease,  for  the 
Professor  of  Rhetorick  of  Harvard  College  beats  you  all. 

In  his  second  sentence  the  Professor  is  guilty  of  an  inaccu 
racy  in  using  <f  some  friend  of  the  writer,"  instead  of  "  wri 
ter's."  Had  he  been  speaking  of  the  wife  of  the  writer,  it 
would  have  been  proper,  merely  substituting  the  instead  of 
some.  * 

"  The  subjects  of  this  letter  are  the  Embargo  and  the  dif- 
**  ference  in  controversy  between  our  country  and  Great  Bri= 
«  tain." 

We  understand  what  is  meant, by  a  difference  between  two 
countries  or  two  men.  It  is  a  familiar,  though  not  an  ele 
gant  term  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  dispute.  We  understand 
also  what  is  meant  by  a  matter  in  controversy,  viz.  some 
thing  which  is  disputed.  But  we  have  no  precise  idea  of 
what  is  meant  by  a  difference  'or  dispute  in  controversy.  It 
seems  pretty  much  like  a  fight  in  battle. 

(<  Subjects  upon  which  it  is  my  misfortune  (in  the  discharge 
<c  of  my  duties  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States)  to  differ  from 
<f  the  opinions  of  my  colleague." 

To  differ  from  an  opinion  is  an  improper  expression ;  un 
less  the  writer  meant  to  inform  us  that  he  is  himse If  a  differ 
ent  thing  from  an  •opinion.  The  usual  mode  of  speech  is,  to 
differ  in  opinion  with  a  person,  or  to  dissent  from  his  opinion. 
The  phrase  has  another  impropriety.  The  words  which  stand 
in  a  parenthesis,  restrain  the  writer's  assertion  (that  he  held 
different  opinions  from  his  colleague  on  certain  subjects)  to 
those  occasions  in  which  he  appeared  as  a  senator;  where 
fore  it  may  be  implied  that  such  difference  ceased  as  soon  as 
he  left  the  senate  chamber:  in  short,  that  it  was  a  sort  of  re*; 
gimental  dress,  which  he  put  on  to  attend  the  senate,  and 
took  off  when  he  came  home. 

<e  The  writer,  with  the  most  animated  tone  of.  energy,  calls 
*f  for  the  interposition  of  the  ccxmercial  states," 


[      4      ] 

To  speak  with  a  tone,  means  an  affected  or  particular 
manner  of  speaking,  not  usual  or  proper.  We  presume  the 
learned  Professor's  idea  would  have  been  better  conveyed, 
had  he  said,  The  writer  in  the  most  animated  tone.  We 
suppose,  too,  the  words  "  animated  tone  "  were  intended  to 
convey  the  idea  of  a  lively  or  earnest  manner;  but  \ve  can 
not  guess  what  is  meant  by  the  most  animated  tone  of  ener 
gy.  Has  energy  various  tones,  some  of  them  more  animated 
th  m  others? 

"  They  must  have  been  compelled  either  to  act  upon  the 
*'  \7iews  of  this  representation,  without  hearing  the  counter- 
*c  statement  of  the  other  side,"  &c. 

By  views  of  a  representation  is  meant  (as  we  suppose)  the 
views  of  him  who  made  the  representation.  But  we  do  not 
perceive  what  is  meant  by  being  compelled  to  act  upon  those 
Tiews,  unless  the  word  upon  be  considered  as  synonimous 
"with  conformably  to,  or  according  to.  Had  he  said  to  act  on 
the  representation,  it  would  have  conveyed  the  idea  with 
more  perspicuity. 

"  The  counter  statement  of  the  other  side  "  might  pass  as 
an  expression  of  one  of  Mr.  Adams's  newspaper  eulogists,  but 
seems  too  palpable  a  pleonasm  for  a  Professor  of  Rhetorick. 

"  The  very  object  and  formation  of  the  national  delibera- 
ff  tive  assemblies,  was  for  the  compromise  and  conciliation  of 
ff  the  interests  of  all." 

To  compromise  the  interests  of  a  nation  is  to  put  in  danger. 
If  this  was  indeed  the  object  for  which  our  Congress  was 
formed,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  by  laying  the  embargo, 
they  laboured  in  their  vocation.  But  the  writer  (we  believe) 
meant  that  these  assemblies  were  instituted  to  compromise  the 
differences,  and  conciliate  the  interests.  Some  fashionable 
\vriters  have  lately  used  the  French  compromit  in  place  of 
the  English  compromise)  but  even  if  we  take  this  last  word 
to  express  only  the  settling  amicably  (which  is  one  of  its 
meanings)  the  phrase  above  cited  will  remain  incorrect. 

"  Whenever  the  case  occurs  that  this  sense  should  be  clear- 
f*  ly  and  emphatically  expressed,  it  ought  surely  to  be  predicat- 
t€  ed  upon  a  full  and  impartial  consideration  of  the  whole  sub- 
*c  ject,  not  under  the  stimulus  of  a  one-sided  representation." 

We  do  not  understand  what  is  meant  by  a  sense  predicat 
ed  under  a  stimulus.  We  can  guess  what  is  meant  by  <€  pre 
dicated  upon,"  which  we  suppose  was  inteilded  for  of  (in  con 
sequence  of )  a  full  and  important  consideration.  We  guess 
also  that  by  "  one-sided  representation,"  was  meant  the  re^ 
'presentation  made  by  those  who  maintain  one  side  of  the 


[      5      J 

question.      We  think  nevertheless  that  one-sided  represent 
tio  )  is  a  lop-sided  expression. 

"  Should  the  occurrence  upon  which  an  appeal  is  made 
(S  from  the  councils  of  the  nation  to  those  of  a  single  state, 
s(  be  one  upon  which  the  representation  of  the  state  has  been 
«  divided." 

We  readily  conceive  that  division  can  t^ke  place,  and  ap 
peal  be  made,  upon  a  question  ;  but  how  either  is  to  happen 
upon  an  occurrence,  is  not  so  clear. 

In  the  same  section  it  is  said, 

"  Some  notice  of  such  intention  should  be  given  to  him, 
<(  that  he  too  might  be  prepared  to  exhibit  his  views  of  the 
*c  subjept,  upon  which  his  differences  of  opinion  had  taken 
«  place," 

The  writer  we  suppose  meant  that  he  might  be  prepared  t* 
exhibit  those  views  of  the  subject  which  led  him  to  differ  in 
opinion.  A  and  B  may  differ  in  opinion  ;  in  which  case  t.here 
will  be  a  difference  (of  opinion)  between  A  and  B.  But  this 
difference  belongs  neither  to  A  nor  to  B. 

"  The  fairness  and  propriety  of  this  course  of  proceeding 
f<  must  be  so  obvious,  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  pro- 
*'  priety  of  any  other.  Yet  it  prevents  another  inconve- 
(e  nience." 

We  stiould  be  glad  to  know  what  this  last  it  refers  to. 

"  When  one  of  the  senators  from  a  state  proclaims  to  his 
*{  constituents  that  a  particular  measure  or  system  of  measures 
<(  winch  has  received  the  vote  and  support  of  his  colleague 
<*  are  pernicious  and  destructive,"  &c. 

This  we  confess,  from  a  Professor  of  Rhetorick,  is  rather  be- 
.yond  any  thing  we  could  have  expected.  Avowedly  addres 
sing  a  laboured  composition  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
he  violates  one  of  the  first  rules  of  syntax  ;  he  not  only  make? 
the  verb  disagree  with  its  nominative  case,  but  employs  one 
verb  in  the  singular  and  one  in  the  plural,  and  forces  them  in 
to  an  alliance  with  the  same  noun — a  measure  which  has  receiv 
ed  are  pernicious !  Nor  is  this  the  only  instance  in  which 
the  Professor  breaks  Priscian's  head.  He  says  (p.  20)  "  It  is 
but  a  little  more  than  two  years,  since  this  question  was  agi 
tated  both  in  England  and  America,  with  as  much  zeal,  ener 
gy  and  ability  as  ever  ivas  displayed,"  &c.  And  in  page  23, 
"  If  the  voice  of  reason  and  of  justice  could  be  heard,  they 
would  say." 

"  The  advocate  of  a  policy  thus  reprobated  must  feel  him- 
ff  self  summonedby  every  motive  of  self-defence  to  vindicate 
**  his  conduct :  and  if  a  general  sense  of  his  official  duties 


C    e    ] 

*<*  would  bind  him  to  the  industrious  devotion  of  his  whole 
"  time  to  the  pubhck  business  of  the  session,  the  hours  which 
A  he  might  be  forced  to  employ  for  his  own  justification, 
**  would,  of  course,  be  deducted  from  the  discharge  of  his  more 
*(  regular  and  appropriate  functions." 

In  the  democratick  newspaper  copies  of  this  letter,  we  find 
<c  challenged  by  every  motive,"  &c.  which  we  presume  is  a 
revision  and  amendment  of  the  writer's. 

*t his  is  the  first  time  we  ever  heard  of  motives  sending  chal 
lenges  or  summonses  ;  and,  of  all  the  motives  in  the  world, 
that  of  self-defence  is  the  last  we  should  have  suspected.  Here 
the  writer  violates  a  rule  of  composition,  by  crowding  into 
one  period  different  and  entire  thoughts ;  thus  joining  in 
language  what  is  separate  in  reality.  The  period  should  have 
closed  at  "  conduct."  As  to  his  "  discharge  of  a  function/* 
we  have  no  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  the  "  discharge  of  a 
function."  There  are,  we  know,  certain  parts  of  the  body 
whose  functions  it  is  to  discharge  ;  but  the  things  thus  discharg 
ed  arenotcalled  functions.  If  the  writer  by  function  meant  duty, 
he  was  mistaken,  The  epithet  appropriate  also  is  misappli 
ed.  The  words  appropriate  and  proper  express  different 
ideas.  The  former,  derived  from  the  verb  to  appropriate, 
that  is,  to  consign  to  some  particular  object  or  use,  bears  with 
it  (as  a  participial  adjective)  the  meaning  of  the  root.  Thus, 
to  speak  in  appropriate  terms  is  to  use  the  words  which  cus 
tom  has  consigned  to  the  subject  spoken  of.  The  last  objec 
tion  we  have  to  this  sentence  is  its  redundancy ;  which  will 
be  abundantly  evident  if  we  express  the  same  ideas  with  sim 
plicity  and  precision,  thus  : 

e  And  if  his  sense  of  duty  would  have  bound  him  to  devote 

*  his  time  to  the  publick  business,  this  vindication  must  infringe 

*  upon  the  more  regular  and  proper  employment  of  his  hours.' 

What  do  we  miss  here  but  about  one  half  the  words  em 
ployed  by  the  Professor  ? 

In  the  same  paragraph  we  find,  "  Nor  can  I  forbear  to  re 
mark  the  tendency  of  such  antagonizing  appeals  to  distract," 
&c.  This  should  be  to  remark  on  or  else  to  notice.  "  Anta 
gonizing  appeals!"  "That's  a  vile  word,  beautified's  a  vile 
\vord."  When  our  Professor  shall  attain  to  the  authority  of 
'a  Johnson  in  literature,  he  may  perhaps  venture  upon  coining 
a  word  to  express  some  idea  not  already  provided  with  an  ex 
pression  ;  but  when  he  does,  we  hope  he  will  discover  a  little 
more  taste  and  a  little  better  ear  than  he  has  in  the  aforesaid 
antagonizing.  If  we  guess  rightly  his  meaning,  antagonist}- 
eal  would  have  come  nearer  the  idea  he  meant  to  convey. 
We  object,  too,  to  his  new  word  closure  (page  11)  as  it  is  at 


t      7      ) 

a  superfluous  word,  and  has  no  support  in  analogy.  In- 
closure  is  a  place  inclosed  ;  how  can  closure  mean  the  act  of 
closing  ?  But  it  is  so  Jeffersonian  to  make  new  words,  that 
Mr.  Jefferson's  new  disciple  could  not  resist  the  temptation  to 
ape  his  master. 

A  little  farther  we  find  "  mutual  asperities  and  rancours  ;* 
•which  last  -word  is  not  to  be  used  in  the  plural.  The  para 
graph  closes  by  informing  us  that  if  a  certain  course  be  pursu* 
ed, 

"  The  great  concerns  of  the  nation  would  degenerate  into 
*c  the  puny  controversies  of  personal  altercation." 

The  altercation  of  controversies,  or  the  controversies  of  al 
tercation,  are  very  like  the  debates  of  debate.  But  how  are 
the  great  concerns  of  a  nation  to  degenerate  into  personal 
controversy  or  altercation  ?  That  debates  on  such  concerns, 
when  managed  by  persons  of  a  certain  description,  may  so 
Regenerate,  is  proved  by  experience  ;  but  the  nature  of  the 
concerns  themselves  is  not  thereby  changed.  If  the  Congress 
should  spend  half  a  year  in  prattling  like  children  about  war, 
they  would  not  thereby  convert  war  into  children's  play. 

"  In  developing  my  own  views,  &c.  some  very  material 
f<  differences  in  point  of  fact  as  well  as  of  opinion,  will  be 
*'  found  between  my  statements  and  those  of  the  letter,  which 
*f  alone  can  apologize  for  this." 

Here  the  violent  separation  of  the  pronoun  which  from  its 
antecedent,  leads  to  a  wrong  sense.  The  writer  meant  to  say^ 
that  the  differences  between  his  statements  and  those  of  the 
letter,  only,  (but  not  ({  alone  ")  constitute  his  apology.  A  still 
more  violent  separation  is  found  in  page  10,  where  the  ante 
cedent  to  they  ["they  were  announced"]  is  to  be  hunted  for5 
and  at  length  is  actually  hunted  up  in  a  preceding  paragraph, 

"  Far  more  pleasing  would  it  have  been  to  me,  could  that 
"  honest  and  anxious  pursuit  of  the  policy  best  calculated  to 
<f  promote  the  honour  and  welfare  of  our  country,  which,  I 
*f  trust,  is  felt  with  equal  ardour  by  us  both,  have  resulted  in 
w  the  same  opinions,  and  have  given  them  the  vigour  of  united  - 
ts  exertion." 

"Without  stopping  to  inquire  what  we  are  to  uderstand  by  : 
the  pursuit  of  a  policy  resulting  in  an  opinion,  we  shall  mere 
ly  observe  that  the  Professor,  by  using  the  auxiliary  verb 
could  have,  instead  of  had)  has  conveyed  a  different  meaning 
from  what  be  intended  to.  It  should  have  been,  "  had  that 
honest  and  anxious  pursuit,"  &c. 

"  In  our  republican  government,  where  the  power  of  the 
&  nation  consists  alone  in  the  sympathies  of  opinion,  this  re- 


I      8      } 

'*  ciprocal  deference,  this  open-hearted  imputation  of  honest 
<c  intentions,  is  the  only  adamant,  at  once  attractive  and  im- 
*(  penetrable,  that  can  bear  unshattered  all  the  thunder  of  fo- 
«  reign  hostility." 

"We  have  transcribed  this  beautiful  metaphor  that  we  might 
have  an  opportunity  to  express  the  pleasure  it  gives  us.  We 
wish  another  term  had  been  substituted  for  imputation,  which 
is  seldom  used  in  a  good  sense.  We  impute  evil,  we  attri 
bute  good,  and  ascribe  both.  We  shall  not  examine  how  far 
the  power  of  a  nation  consists  in  sympathies  or  in  opinion, 
because  our  present  business  is  to  consider  only  the  language. 
We  cannot  however  forbear  observing  that  we  have  no  pie- 
cise  notion  of  what  is  meant  by  the  sympathies  of  opinion. 
The  fellow-feeling  of  opinion  is  a  matter  beyond  our  reach. 
"Attractive  adamant!"  attractive  amber  we  have  heard  of; 
but  we  never  heard  before  that  adamant  attracted.  The  Pro 
fessor,  however,  is  as  great  a  philosopher,  we  infer,  since  his 
intimacy  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  we  know  him  to  be  a  rhetori 
cian  ;  so  we  let  that  pass  ;  especially  as  the  Professor,  we  are 
happy  to  observe,  must  be  perfectly  indifferent  to  all  attacks 
upon  him  or  his  language  ;  for,  after  declaring  as  above,  that 
this  "  reciprocal  deference,"  &c.  "  is  the  adamant  that  can 
bear  unshattered  all  the  thunder  of  foreign  hostility,"  in 
the  next  sentence,  he  informs  us  that  he  himself  possesses  a 
shield  made  of  it ;  he  says,  "  he  has  extended  it  to  every  de 
partment  of  the  government." 

"  I  know  indeed  enough  of  human  nature  to  be  sensible  that 
€?  vigilant  observation  is  at  all  times,  and  that  suspicion  ma/ 
fc  occasionally  become,  necessary  upon  th^  conduct  of  men  in 
*f  power.'* 

Suspicion  upon  the  conduct,  is  not  English.  Neither  is  sus 
picion  of  the  conduct,  correct.  We  may  suspect  men  of  im 
proper  designs  or  actions,  and  we  may  suspect  their  conduct 
to  be  the  result  of  improper  motives.  The  expression  of  "vi 
gilant  observation  upon  the  conduct  "  is  also  incorrect.  A 
discerning  man  may  not  unfrequently  make  shrewd  observa 
tions  on  the  conduct  of' others,  but  observations  (in  this  t^e) 
means  remark.  In  the  other  case,  we  say  observation  q/,  ,  >t 
en. — The  idea  which  the  writer  intended  to  convey  n;ay 
be  expressed  thus :  «  Vigilant  observation  of  the  conduct  of 
men  in  power  is  necessary  at  all  times,  and  suspicion  may 
become  so  occasionally." 

The  writer  adds, 

*c  But  I  know  as  well  that  confidence  is  the  only  cement  of 
"  an  elective  government.  Election  is  the  very  test  of  con- 


[      9      ] 

"  fidence,  and  its  periodical  return  is  the  constitutional  check 
w  upon  its  abuse." 

To  what  does  the  word  its  refer?  The  last  antecedent  is 
confidence  ;  but  the  periodical  return  of  confidence  cannot  be 
a  check  upon  the  abuse  of  confidence.  Neither  can  the  peri 
odical  return  of  elections  be  a  check  on  the/abuse  of  elections. 
The  ambiguity  might  have  been  avoided  by  using  election  in 
the  plural,  and  saying,  "  elections  are  the  test  of  confidence, 
and  their  periodical  return  is  the  check  on  its  abuse."  Let  it 
however  be  noted  that  "  its  return  "  and  "  its  abuse,  "  instead 
of  "the  return"  and  "the  abuse  of  it,"  are  not  accurate. 
The  writer  goes  on  thus  : 

"  For  the  exercise  of  power,  where  man  is  free,  confidence 
"  is  indispensable." 

A  thing  may  be  indispensable  to  the  exercise,  but  not  for 
the  exercise. — He  adds, 

€t  And  when  it  once  totally  fails — when  the  men  to  whom 
«  the  people  have  committed  the  application  of  their  force, 
f  for  their  benefit,  are  to  be  presumed  the  vilest  of  mankind, 
"  the  very  foundation  of  the  social  compact  must  be  dissolv- 
«  erf." 

This  expression  may  be  excused  in  a  gentlemen  who  has 
travelled  to  the  confines  of  Russia,  where  palaces  are  some 
times  (it  is  said)  built  on  the  ice,  for  the  very  foundation  of 
such  palaces  may  be  dissolved ;  but  in  our  country  the  solution 
of  a  foundation  is  no  common  event. 

"  Towards  the  gentleman  whose  official  station  resulted 
t€  from  the  confidence  of  the  same  legislature  by  whose  ap- 
€<  pointment  I  have  the  honour  of  holding  a  similar  trust,  I 
tf  have  thought  this  confidence  peculiarly  due  from  me ;  nor 
(C  should  I  now  notice  his  letter,  notwithstanding  the  disap- 
<(  probation  it  so  obviously  implies  at  the  course  which  I  have 
"  pursued  in  relation  to  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats,  did  it 
"  not  appear  to  me  calculated  to  produce  upon  the  publick 
"  mind  impressions  unfavourable  to  the  rights  and  interests  of 
w  the  nation." 

This  sentence  contains  almost  as  many  errours  as  could  well 
be  accumulated  in  a  single  period. 

Certain  things  may  be  due  by  one  person  to  another,  but  not 
from  one  person  towards  another.  Whether  confidence  be 
one  of  those  things,  is  a  different  question. 

Again :  Impressions  are  made,  not  produced.  To  produce 
upon  is  to  generate  or  beget :  but  a  letter  does  not  seem  to 
be  the  proper  instrument  for  acts  of  this  sort,  neither  do  such 
acts  usually  beget  impressions.  The  turgid  and  superfluous 

c 


t    10   ] 

phraseology  employed  merely  to  say  that  Mr.  Pickering  and 
himself  were  chosen  senators  by  the  same  legislature,  is  no 
thing  less  than  ridiculous.  It  is  a  rule,,  that  during  a  period  the 
scene  ought  to  be  continued  without  variation.  The  changing 
from  person  to  person,  from  subject  to  person,  or  from  person  to 
subject,  within  the  same  period,  is  not  allowable.  In  the 
above  period  the  scene  is  changed  upon  us  no  less  than  four 
times ;  from  subject  to  person,  from  person  to  subject,  from 
subject  to  person  again,  and  lastly  from  person  to  subject. — 
This  is  intolerable.  Thus  in  the  following  sentence,  (page  30) 

"  For,  as  submission  would  make  us,  to  all  substantial  pur- 
"  poses,  British  colonies,  her  enemies  would  unquestionably 
"  treat  us  as  such,  and  after  degrading  ourselves  into  volunta- 
*f  ry  servitude  to  escape  a  war  with  her,  we  should  incur  ine- 
f<  vitable  war  with  her  enemies,  and  be  doomed  to  share  the 
"  destinies  of  her  conflict  with  a  world  in  arms." 

In  this  sentence  the  scene  is  changed  from  subject  to  per 
son,  and  from  person  to  person.  To  avoid  this  blemish  the 
idea  might  be  expressed  thus :  For  as  by  submission  we 
should,  to  all  substantial  purposes,v  become  British  colonies, 
and  unquestionably  be  treated  by  her  enemies  as  such,  we 
should,  after  degrading  ourselves,  &c.  incur  inevitable  war,5' 
&c. 

€€  For  my  opinions  (though  fully  persuaded  that  even  where 
"  differing  from  your  own  they  will  meet  with  a  fair  and 
"  liberal  judge  in  you)  yet  of  the  publick  I  ask  neither  favour 
(e  nor  indulgence.  Pretending  to  no  very  extraordinary  cre- 
tc  dit  from  the  authority  of  the  writer,  I  am  sensible  they 
"  must  fall  by  their  own  weakness,  or  stand  by  their  own 
«  strength." 

The  word  yet  should  be  omitted,  as  will  readily  be  per 
ceived  if  the  phrase  be  read  without  the  parenthesis.  The 
personification  of  opinions  is  rather  too  strong  a  figure,  al 
though  opinion  (in  the  singular  number)  considered  as  a  pow 
erful  agent  in  national  affairs,  may  be  personified,  especially 
by  a  poet.  It  is,  also,  doubtful  whether  the  writer  meant  to 
ascribe  unpretending  modesty  to  his  opinions,  or  to  himself. 
If  the  latter,  the  phrase  would  have  been  more  perspicuous, 
as  well  as  more  correct,  had  it  stood  thus :  <c  I  am  sensible 
that  they  can  derive  no  extraordinary  credit  from  the  author 
ity  of  the  writer,  and  must  fall,"  &c. 

"  Tenfold  as  many  millions  of  the  same  property  would 
<f  have  been  at  this  moment  in  the  same  predicament)  had 
"  they  not  been  saved  from  the  exposure  to  it  by  the  embar- 
*  go," 


[  11  J 

We  know  what  it  is  to  be  exposed  to  danger,  but  we  have 
never  before  heard  of  being  exposed  to  a  predicament. 

€*  And  we  know  that  of  these  all-devouring  instruments  of 
"  rapine,  Mr.  Rose  was  not  even  informed." 

An  all-devouring  instrument !  Truly,  if  you  go  on  at  this 
rate,  Mr.  Professor,  you  will  rival  that  ambitious  poet  who 
threatened  with  his  head  to  knock  out  all  the  stars. 

((  If  the  alarm  was  groundless,  it  must  very  soon  be  dispro* 
t€  ved,  and  the  embargo  might  be  removed  with  the  danger." 

Putting  aside  mistakes  in  the  tenses,  we  should  be  glad  to 
know  how  an  alarm  is  to  be  disproved*  We  believe  the 
idea  of  the  writer  would  have  been  conveyed  by  saying,  "  If 
the  alarm  was  groundless,  it  must  soon  have  subsided,  and,  the 
apprehension  of  danger  ceasing,  the  embargo  might  be  rais 
ed." 

"  I  have  believed,  and  do  still  believe,  that  our  internal  re- 
t€  sources  are  competent  to  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
"  of  a  naval  force,  publick  and  private,  if  not  fully  adequate  to 
**  the  protection  and  defence  of  our  commerce,  at  least  suffi- 
t€  cient  to  induce  a  retreat  from  those  hostilities,  and  from  a 
fc  renewal  of  them,  by  either  of  the  warring  parties." 

A  retreat  by  either  of  the  parties  does  not  convey  what 
we  suppose  to  have  been  the  writer's  meaning;  and  second 
ly,  a  retreat  from  hostilities  is  not  English.  It  is  an  exam 
ple  of  the  Jeffersonian,  or  hurly-burly  style,  in  which  words 
are  rattled  out  like  dice,  as  if  to  try  whether  chance  can  make 
a  sentence.  A  retreat  is,  the  act  of  retiring  before  superiour 
force,  from  one  place  to  another,  not  from  one  act  to  an 
other.  But  hostilities  are  the  acts  of  an  enemy.  To  say, 
therefore,  that  a  warring  party  retreats  from  hostilities,  is  to 
say  that  he  retires  from  his  own  actions. 

"  I  am  not  sufficiently  confident  in  the  superiority  of  my 
a  own  wisdom  to  appeal,  by  a  topical  application,  to  the  con- 
"  genial  feelings  of  any  one ;  not  even  of  my  own  native  sec- 
"  twn  of  the  Union." 

"  Topical  application"  is  a  surgical  term ;  and  means  some 
thing  applied  to  a  particular  part  of  the  body :  such  for  in 
stance  as  a  corn-plaster  to  the  toe.  We  believe  this  to  be 
the  first  time  that  a  topical  application  to  the  feelings  was 
ever  thought  of.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  conceive  how  an 
appeal  can  be  made  by  topical  application,  and  how  such  ap 
plications  can  be  made  to  the  feelings :  unless  indeed  meta 
phorically,  to  the  corporal  feelings.  A  blistering-plaster  to  a 
man's  buttocks  is  a  topical  application,  and  would  excite  feel 
ings,  wherefore  it  might  be  called  ajn  application  to  his  feel- 


[    »    3 

ings  :  To  make  an  "  appeal"  however  by  siich  an  application 
would  be  somewhat  of  a  novelty.  But  further,  it  appears  the 
writer  will  not  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  any  one,  not  even  of 
his  own  native  section  of  the  union.  (S  Any  one"  means  any 
person  ;  wherefore  from  the  structure  of  the  sentence  it  follows, 
that  the  section  is  an  individual  man  or  woman.  The  phrase 
too,  "  native  section  of  the  union,"  appears  inelegant,  at  least, 
if  not  improper. 

"  If  it  (the  embargo)  should  prove  ineffectual  for  the  pur- 
(t  poses  which  it  was  meant  to  secure,  a  single  day  will  suf- 
rt  fice  to  unbar  the  doors." 

We  cannot  secure  a  purpose.  We  can  effect  a  purpose, 
and  thus  having  obtained  something,  we  can  afterwards  se 
cure  the  acquisition. 

"  Should  we,  by  a  dereliction  of  our  right  at  this  momen- 
**  tous  stride  of  encroachment,  surrender  our  commercial  free- 
"  dom  without  a  struggle,  Britain  has  but  a  single  step  more 
«  to  take." 

The  first  question  which  presents  itself  here  is,  how  the  de 
reliction  (the  utter  abandonment)  of  a  right,  can  amount  to 
the  positive  surrender  of  our  freedom.  The  next  question 
is,  what  the  writer  means  by  a  momentous  stride.  Momen 
tous  is  weighty,  and  (by  metaphor)  important.  Thus  we  say 
momentous  period.  But  we  cannot  pile  metaphor  on  meta 
phor  §  wherefore  a  momentous  stride  must  mean  a  weighty 
Stride,  which  is  but  an  odd  kind  of  stride.  Admitting  howe- 
*er,  that  momentous  may  stand  for  longorlarge,or  any  thing 
else  which  can  properly  be  applied  to  a  stride,  still  we  cannot 
make  dereliction  at  or  fo  a  stride,  however  large  or  long. 

**  Yet  these  orders — thus  fatal  to  the  liberties,  for  which 
n  the  sages  and  heroes  of  our  revolution  toiled  and  bled — thus 
t€  studiously  concealed  until  the  moment  when  they  burst  up- 
*  on  our  heads." 

Wonderful  orders!  Orders  which,  like  bombs  or  pump 
kins,  burst  on  people's  heads.  We  have  heard  of  cruel  or 
ders,  wicked  orders,  bloody  orders,  and  God  knows  how  ma 
ny  other  sorts  of  orders,  but  never  till  this  blessed  day  did  we 
meet  with  "  bursting  orders.'/ 

"  It  is  not  however  in  a  mere  omission,  nor  yet  in  the  his- 
'*  tory  of  the  embargo,  that  the'inaccuracies  of  the  statement 
«  I  am  examining  have  given  me  the  most  concern  ;  it  is  in 
"  the  view  taken  of  the  question  between  us  and  Britain." 

The  word  in  should  have  been  by  ;  for  we  believe  the  wri 
ter  meant  to  say  that  the  inaccuracies  complained  of  gave  him 
concern  by  the  omission,  by  the  history,  and,  above  all,  by  the 
view. 

' 


[     13     1 

<*  A  moment  extremely  critical  of  pending  negotiation,  up- 
"  on  all  the  points  thus  delineated." 

A  moment  of  pending  negotiation  is  rather  a  strained  ex 
pression,  but  let  it  pass.  We  cannot  however  so  easily  pass 
the  delineation  of  points.  A  mathematical  point,  having  no 
parts,  cannot  be  marked  out  by  lines ;  and  points  in  contro 
versy,  a  metaphorical  expression,  will  not  suomit  to  a  meta 
phor  taken  from  painting,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  deline 
ated.  The  points  in  a  controversy  may  be  expressed,  stated, 
advanced,  but  are  not  to  be  delineated.  Besides,  the  sepa 
ration  of  the  noun  from  its  possessive  case  is  awkward  and 
harsh ;  of  which  a  similar  instance  occurs  page  5.  "  The 
whole  truth  can  be  discerned  of  questions,"  &c.  This  might 
do  in  the  writings  of  a  humble  editor  of  a  daily  newspaper, 
but  is  inadmissible  in  that  finished  style  to  be  expected  from  a 
Professor  of  Rhetorick  of  Harvard  College. 

((  This  formal  abandonment  of  the  American  cause,  this 
"  summons  of  unconditional  surrender  to  the  pretensions  of 
(<  our  antagonist,  is  in  my  mind  highly  alarming." 

We  do  not  make  a  summons  of  surrender.  The  summons! 
of  the  besieger  requires  the  besieged  to  surrender.  We  may 
be  said  to  surrender  to  our  antagonist,  when  we  acknowledge 
his  unfounded  pretensions,  but  we  do  not  surrender  to  the 
pretensions.  Thus  the  use  of  the  wrong  preposition  occurs  in 
a  sentence  noticed  in  our  last.  "  The  disapprobation  it  so 
obviously  implies  at  the  same  course,"  &c.  Disapprobation  of 
a  course  may  be  properly  enough  expressed,  but  not  at  a 
course  :  "  dissatisfaction  at"  is  sometimes  used. 

"  If  the  right  was  claimed  and  exercised  while  our  vessels 
((  were  navigating  under  the  British  flag,  it  could  not  author- 
"  ize  the  same  claim  when  their  owners  have  become  the 
"'citizens  of  a  sovereign  state.  As  a  relict  of  colonial  servi- 
«  tude,"  &c. 

We  presumed  at  first  that  the  word  relict  was  relick  in  the 
manuscript,  and  that  relict  was  anerrour  of  the  press ;  but  we 
observe  it  is  relict  in  all  the  newspaper,  as  well  as  pamphlet 
copies.  Now  a  relict  is  a  widow.  It  would  have  been  bet 
ter  to  have  used  the  term  remnant.  Relick  is  seldom  found 
in  the  singular,  and  is  usually  applied  in  a  solemn  and  religious 
sense,  as  the  relicks  of  a  saint  or  departed  friend.  There  is  a 
grammatical  errour  also  in  the  formation  of  the  phrase,  which 
should  be  either,  they  cannot  authorize  the  same  claim,,  now 
that  their  owners  have  become^  or  they  could  not  authorize 
the  same  claim  when  their  owners  became. 

"  Is  it  meant  to  be  asserted  that  this  claim  and  exercise 


[     14     ] 

€t  constitute'  a  right  ?  If  it  is,  1  appeal  not  only  to  the  warm 
"  feelings,  but  cool  justice,  of  the  American  people,  &c.  against 
*(  the  assertion  of  it." 

We  do  not  appeal  against  an  assertion,  nor  even  against  a 
decree;  we  appeal  from.  This  impropriety,  however,  is  not 
the  greatest  objection  we  have  to  the  above  sentence.  We 
will  allow  the  author  his  warm  feelings,  if  he  pleases,  for  such 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  him  in  an  eminent  degree, 
when  he  wrote  this  far-famed  Letter ;  but  we  can  never  al 
low  him  to  talk  of  cool  justice,  notwithstanding  the  pretty 
verbal  antithesis  it  makes  as  it  stands.  We  say  cool  judg 
ment,  because  judgment  may  be  so  or  not;  it  may  be  precipi 
tate  or  deliberate  ;  it  admits  of  degrees :  but  justice  is  always 
the  same ;  and  we  can  no  more  say  cool  justice,  than  we  can 
cool  truth  or  cool  falsehood. 

"  The  question  is,  whether  he  has  a  right  to  seize  them 
"forcibly  on  board  of  our  vessels  while  under  contract  ofser- 
"  vice  of  our  citizens." 

To  seize  is  to  take  by  force  ;  and  a  thing  done  forcibly  is  a 
thing  done  by  force  :  therefore,  to  "  seize  forcibly"  is  to  take 
by  force  by  force.  This  maybe  called  a  strong,  or  rather  a  double- 
fortified  expression.  Contract  of  service  of  our  citizens,  should 
be  with  our  citizens.  A  man  does  not  contract  o/,  but  with. 

"  It  is  taking  under  colour  of  fair  pretence  our  own  native 
<(  American  citizens,  which  constitutes  the  most  galling  ag- 
€(  gravation  of  this  merciless  practice." 

The  colour  of  a  pretence  is  very  like  the  shadow  of  a  shade. 
There  are  circumstances  which  aggravate  an  accusation,  but 
we  know  not  of  any  thing  which  can  aggravate  a  practice. 

"  If  the  nature  of  the  offence  be  considered  in  its  true  eo- 
"  lours,  to  a  people  having  a  just  sense  of  personal  liberty 
"  and  security  it  is  in  every  single  instance  of  a  malignity 
"  not  inferiour  to  that  of  murder." 

That  is  to  say,  an  offence  which,  considered  in  its  true  co 
lours,  is  of  a  malignity  equal  to  murder  to  a  people.  A  com 
mon  man  would  have  said,  an  offence,  which,  viewed  in  its 
true  colours,  will  appear  of  a  malignity,  &c.  We  do  not 
consider  a  thing  in  a  colour,  neither  does  the  nature  of  a  thing 
depend  on  our  manner  of  considering  or  looking  at  it.  An 
object  is  what  it  is,  but  may  appear  differently  when  seen  in 
different  points  of  view. 

"  There  are  even  examples,  I  am  told,  when  such  officers 
"  have  been  put  upon  the  yellow  Mst." 

When  relates  to  time,  and  cannot  properly  refer  to  exam* 
pies* 


I     15     ] 

*'  The  impressed  native  American  citizens,  however,  upon 
ff  duly  authenticated  proof,  are  delivered  up.  Indeed  !  How 
'*  unreasonable  then  were  complaint !  How  effectual  a  rem- 
S€  edy  for  the  wrong !" 

To  express  the  writer's  idea,  the  word  were  should  be  &, 
and  the  word  a  should  be  the.  He  exclaims,  ironically,  are 
they  indeed  delivered  up  !  then  to  be  sure  it  is  unreasonable 
to  complain  ;  not,  it  would  fee,  which  implies  the  condition  if 
they  are  delivered.  A  remedy  means  in  general  any  remedy  ; 
but  in  order  to  form  a  relation  to  the  particular  remedy  be 
fore  mentioned,  the  phrase  should  end  with  the  words  is  this. 
There  is  also  a  fault  in  the  connexion  of  the  two  exclama 
tions.  Both  of  them  are  ironical,  wherefore  the  latter 
amounts  to  a  denial  that  the  remedy  is  effectual.  It  follows, 
nevertheless,  a  phrase  in  which  the  efficacy  of  the  remedy  is 
presupposed.  The  writer's  idea  may  be  expressed  thus: 
"  Indeed  !  with  a  remedy  so  effectual,  how  unreasonable  to 
complain  !" 

te  An  American  vessel  bound  to  a  European  port  has  two, 
"  three  or  four  native  Americans  impressed  by  a  British  man 
*c  of  war." 

This  is  a  vulgarism,  which  we  should  suppose  might  have 
been  avoided  by  a  professor  of  rhetorick.  The  verb  to  have  is 
either  used  as  an  auxiliary  for  the  tenses  of  other  verbs, 
or  else  it  expresses  possession.  If  taken  in  the  former  sense, 
the  sentence  means,  an  American  vessel  has  impressed  by 
means  of  a  British  man  of  war,  and  in  the  latter  sense  it 
means,  an  American  vessel  possesses  seamen  impressed  by  a 
British  man  of  war  :  whereas  the  author  meant  to  say,  Two, 
three  or  four  native  Americans  are  impressed  by  a  British 
man  of  war,  from  an  American  vessel. 

<c  Sometimes  their  Lordships,  in  a  vein  of  humour,  &c. 
€€  Sometimes  in  a  sterner  tone,  they  say,"  &c. 

Is  a  vein  of  humour  then  a  stern  tone  2 

<f  Sometimes  they  coolly  return  that  there  is  no  such  man 
"  on  board  the  ship ;  and  what  has  become  of  him,  the  ago- 
f<  nies  of  a  wife  and  children,  in  his  native  land,  may  be  left 
*'  to  conjecture." 

The  Professor's  meaning  may  and  must  tf  be  left  to  con 
jecture,"  for  it  has  hitherto  eluded  all  our  attempts  to  disco* 
ver  it.  Perhaps  the  Professor  intended  this  as  a  fine  stroke  of 
his  art ;  supposing,  as  one  of  our  criticks  observes,  that  a  vague 
and  obscure  expression  is  apt  to  be  admired  by  some,  because 
it  conveys  the  sense  they  relish  the  most ;  by  others  as  con 
cise  and  comprehensive,  because  it  suggests  various  meanings 
tt  once. 


«  The  second  point  upcn  which  Mr.  Pickering  defends  the 
"  pretensions  of  Great  Britain,"  &c. 

We  do  not  defend  a  person  upon  a  point,  but  against  a 
charge.  We  say  (metaphorically)  defend  on  this  or  that 
ground  or  principle,  but  then  we  speak  of  the  means  of  de 
fence  ;  of  the  justification)  not  of  the  charge. 

•  "  The  right,  as  on  the  question  of  impressment,  so  on  this,  it 
"  surrenders  at  discretion." 

Here  is  a  harsh  inversion ;  besides,  the  words  so  on  this 
should  be  left  out,  or  else  the  sentence  should  run  thus :  As  on 
the  question  of  impressment,  so  on  this,  it  surrenders  the  right. 

"  Mr.  Fox  had  too  fair  a  inind  for  either,  but  his  compre- 
<e  hensive  and  liberal  spiritw&s  discarded  with  the  cabinet 
<f  which  he  had  formed." 

To  discard  is  to  throw  a  card  out  of  the  hand,  and  thence 
It  is  used  metaphorically  for  the  dismissal  of  a  servant  or  offi 
cer.  But  as  we  do  not  discard  but  throw  up  the  whole  hand, 
so  we  do  not  discard  but  dismiss  the  whole  cabinet.  Above 
all,  we  do  not  discard  a  spirit. 

"  Her  rule  of  the  war  of  1756,  in  itself  and  in  its  effects, 
"  was  one  of  the  deadliest  poisons  in  which  it  was  possible 
((  for  her  to  tinge  the  weapons  of  her  hostility." 

We  do  not  "  tinge  in,"  but  ivithy  and  we  do  not  tinge  with 
poison,  but  with  colour  or  flavour.  We  imbue  with  poison. 

"  This  accumulated  mass  of  legal  learning,"  &c,  "  was  also 
"  made  a  subject  of  full  and  deliberate  discussion,  in  the  senate 
"  of  the  United  States." 

An  "accumulated  mass"  is  of  a  kin  to  his  "reciprocal  offer 
to  be  searched  in  return,"  ((  offensive  resistance,"  "  counter- 
statement  of  the  other  side."  The  Professor  is  always  upon 
stilts  ;  always  labouring  to  exalt  his  style,  and  swell  a  com 
mon  idea  into  an  extraordinary  bulk  by  adjuncts,  expletives, 
and  pleonasms.  After  all,  we  do  not  understand  what  the 
Professor  means  by  saying  this  mass  was  disscussed  in  the 
senate. 

<f  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  deem  suspicion  and  distrust 
w  in  the  highest  order  of  political  virtues." 

Rank  is  the  proper  word  to  be  used  here,  not  deem. 

"  These  alternations  of  licenced  pillage,  this  eager  compe- 
"  tition  between  her  and  her  enemies  for  the  honour  of  giving 
"  the  last  stroke  to  the  vitals  of  maritime  neutrality,  all  are 
"  justly  attributable  to  her  assumption  and  exercise  of  this  sin- 
"  gle  principle." 

We  may  give  a  wound  to  the  vitals,  and  we  may  give  a 
stroke  or  a  blow  to  a  man,  not  to,  but  ovcr>  on>  or  in  a  particu- 


f     17     J 

larpart,  as  the  head,  the  arm,  the  eyes,  &c.  We 'do  not 
exercise  a  principle,  we  exercise  a  right  founded  on  a 
principle. 

"The  rule  of  the  war  of  J.756  was  the  root  from  which 
*  all  the  rest  are  but  suckers,  still  at  every  shoot  growing 
«  ranker  in  luxuriance." 

A  sucker  springs  from  the  trunk  or  branches,  and  a  sprout 
from  the  root. 

"  fhe  most  enormous  infractions  of  our  rights,  hitherto 
«  committed  by  France,  have  been  more  in  menace  than  in 
c  accomplishment." 

What  is  meant  by  "  an  infraction  in  menace"  and  "  in  ac 
complishment  ?"  A  right  may  be  violated  by  menace,  viz. 
the  right  of  security ;  but  a  violation  in  or  by  accomplish 
ment  !  The  accomplishment  of  what  ?  Is  it  of  a  promise,  or  a 
project,  or  a  threat  ?  The  writer,  we  presume,  means  that 
France  has  violated  our  rights  more  by  her  threats  than  by 
carrying  those  threats  into  execution  ;  which  hitherto,  thank 
God,  she  has  not  been  able  to  effect. 

"The  alarm  has  been  justly  great;  the  anticipation  tlireal- 
t€  ening;  but  the  amount  of  actual  injury  small." 

The  anticipation  is  supposed  to  have  been  made  by  us  of 
the  mischief  we  should  experience,  and  therefore  it  must  have 
been  terrifying,  not  threatening.  Actual  injury  is  opposed 
to  apprehended  injury,  but  is  slipt  in  here  to  express  dam 
age.  Injury  has  two  meanings,  one  of  which  is,  wrong  with 
out  damage.  Thus,  when  a  scoundrel  tells  lies  of  one  honest 
man  to  another  who  does  not  believe  him,  he  injures  the  per 
son  slandered,  though  he  does  him  no  damage.  It  is,  in  all 
humble  manner,  submitted  to  the  learned  Professor,  whether 
the  injury  done  to  our  rights  by  France  is  not  as  great  as  pos 
sible,  although  the  damage  to  our  property  may  have  been 
far  less  than  she  wished  and  intended." 

The  grand  finale  of  this  paragraph  runs  thus : 
"  It  is  not  by  the  light  of  blazing  temples,  and  amid  the 
"  groans  of  women  and  children,  perishing  in  the  ruins  of  the 
(e  sanctuaries  of  domestick  habitation  at  Copenhagen,  that  we 
€(  can  expect  our  remonstrances  against  this  course  of  proceed- 
'*  ing  will  be  heard." 

Bravo!  now  that,  in  our  course  of  perfectibility,  we  have 
got  so  far  as  to  hear  by  the  light,  we  may  hope  soon  to  see 
by  the  sound,  and  feel  by  the  smell.  But  perhaps  the  learn 
ed  Professor  meant  that  we  could  not  expect  by  the  light  and 
amid  the  groans  :  for  such  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words  as  he  has  placed  them.  A  person  less  studious  of  pr- 

if) 


t    13    1 

»arn*£nt  would  have  said,  We  cannot  expect  that  our  rermu* 
strances  will  be  heard  amid  the  groans,  &c.  After  all,  it 
may  be  worth  one  moment's  inquiry,  what  Copenhagen  his 
to  do  with  the  business ;  which  we  understand  to  be  a  re 
monstrance  to  the  Court  of  St.  James's,  against  taking  our  ve# 
sels  when  going  to  or  coming  from  the  French  Islands,  A 
remonstrance  (by  the  by)  which  might  well  be  omitted,  see 
ing  that  the  evil  to  be  remonstrated  against  does  not  exist. 
But  the  groans  at  Copenhagen,  or  even  the  cannonade,  would 
hardly  prevent  people  from  hearing  in  London. 

"  The  attack  upon  the  Chesapeake  was  disavowed ;  and 
"  ample  reparation  was  withheld  only  because  with  the  de- 
ic  mand/or  satisfaction  upon  that  injury  the  American  Govern-. 
"  ment  had  coupled  a  demand  for  the  cessation  of  others,  alike 
<s  in  kind,  but  of  minor  aggravation." 

We  make  a  demand  of  satisfaction  for  an  injury,  and  not 
for  satisfaction  upon  an  injury.  Minor  aggravation  is  less 
increase  of  weight.  So,  then,  there  were  injuries  alike  in 
kind,  but  of  less  increase  of  weight.  Be  not  alarmed,  gentle 
reader.  The  learned  Professor  meant  only  to  say  injuries  of 
Inferiour  magnitude.  But  every  body  couid  have  said  that  * 
men  of  extraordinary  genius  and  learning  must  say  things  in 
an  extraordinary  manner.  Were  it  otherwise,  how  could 
they  effect  the  important  purpose  of  making  the  vulgar  gape 
and  stare  ?  The  object  of  some  men,  upon  some  occasions,  is 
not  to  convince,  but  to  confound  ;  of  course,  the  more  incom 
prehensible,  the  better. 

«  The  great  obstacle  which  has  always  interfered  in  the 
"  adjustment  of  our  differences  with  Britain." 

Pray  how  can  an  obstacle  interfere,  that  is  to  say,  inter 
fere  or  meddle  ?  An  obstacle  may  obstruct,  or  impede,  or  pre 
vent,  but  it  cannot  interfere.  Let  us,  however,  see  what  is 
this  great  obstacle.  We  are  told,  it  is  that  she  refuses  "  the 
application  to  us  of  the  claim  which  she  asserts  for  herself." 
To  assert  is  to  claim,  and  therefore  to  assert  a  claim,  is  to 
claim  a  claim,  or  assert  an  assertion.  We  presume  it 
was  intended  to  say,  that  she  asserts  or  claims  a  right. 
But  this  it  seems  she  refuses  to  apply  to  us.  And  yet, 
if  we  understand  the  gentleman,  the  grievances  he  com 
plains  of  are  consequences  of  that  very  application  to  us  of 
the  rights  she  claims  or  asserts.  We  believe  he  meant 
to  say,  she  refuses  to  acknowledge  in  us,  the  right  she  claims? 
for  herself. 

«  When  that  atrocious  deed  was  committed,  amidst  the 
*'  general  burst  of  indignation  iphwh  rewyndzdfrom  every 


r  ™  } 

F  part  of  this  union,  there  were  among  us  a  small  munbe.r 
<c  of  persons  who  undertook,"  &t. 

Here  the  Professor  violates  that  rule  of  composition,  which 
directs  us  never  to  place  a  circumstance  between  two  capital 
members  of  a  period,  because,  to  do  so,  leaves  it  doubtful  to 
which  of  the  two  the  circumstance  belongs.  The  following 
jj  the  onh  proper  arrangement; 

'  When  that  atrocious  deed  was  committed,  there  were 
*  among  us  a  small  number  of  persons,  who,  amidst  the  ge- 
'.  neral  burst,  &c.  undertook,"  &c. 

"  These  ideas,  &c.  were  persisted  in,  until  the  disavowal 
*f  of  the  British  government  took  away  the  necessity  for  per* 
«  severing  in  them." 

We  persist  and  persevere  in  designs.  We  form,  maintain^ 
inculcate,  adhere  to,  insist  on,  ideas  and  opinions. 

"  A  liberal  and  a  hostile  policy  towards  America  are  among 
'*  the  strongest  marks  of  distinction  between  the  political  syst. 
<c  terns  of  the  rival  statesmen  of  that  kingdom." 

Here  the  Professor  has  conveyed  a  different  meaning  from 
what  he  intended,  by  using  the  conjunctive  and  instead  of 
the  disjunctive  or. 

"  Not  only  are  all  the  outrages  of  Britain  to  be  forgotten,. 
**  but  the  very  assertion  of  our  rights  is  to  be  branded  with 
&  odium." 

To  brand  (to  mark  with  a  hot  iron)  is  used  metaphorically 
lor  affixing  disgrace  or  infamy,  but  we  cannot  brand  with 
odium.  Hatred  is  so  far  from  disgracing,  that  not  unfrequent- 
3y  it  proves  the  talents  and  virtue  of  those  against  whom  it  is 
directed.  The  learned  Professor's  new  friends  honoured  his 
father  with  their  hatred. 

"  Every  phantom  of  jealousy  and  fear  is  evoked.  The 
"  image  of  France,  with  a  scourge  in  her  hand,  is  impressed 
"  into  the  service," 

We  doubt  whether  the  verb  to  evoke  be  English.  The  sub 
stantive  evocation  (called  forth)  is  an  English  word,  and  if 
the  verb  be  used,  it  must  apply  in  the  same  sense.  Of  course, 
it  will  here  express  the  calling  forth  of  what  really  exists  not 
— a  phantom,  a  non-existence. 

«  Is  American  pillage  one  of  those  rights  which  she  has 
•*'  claimed  and  exercised  until  we  are  foreclosed  from  any  at- 
<f  tempt  to  obstruct  its  collection  ?" 

We  do  not  collect  rights  nor  pillage.  Besides,  pillage  can* 
not  be  a  right,  even  though  the  right  to  pillage  were  admit 
ted.  American  pillage  means  plundering  by  Americans,  or 
•what  Americans  have  gained  by  plunder;  biit  we  do  not 
but  of  British  pillage, 


[     20     J 

*g  After  degrading  ourselves  int®  voluntary  servitude,'*  Sec, 

A  person  may  he  degraded  by  or  in  consequence  ff  some 
thing  f-'one  or  suffered.  He  may  also  be  degraded  from  the 
rank  he  previously  held,  to  an  inferiour  state  or  condition. 

<(  It  [the  Embargo]  has  dashed  the  philter  of  pillage  from 
<c  the  lips  of  rapine." 

It  grieves  us  to  have  to  find  fault  with  this  beautiful  figure, 
which  has  beeiMnore  admired  perhaps  than  any  tbing  in  the 
Professor's  whole  performance.  But,  "Jiat  justitii3  mat  cce- 
lum." 

Similes,  saith  the  critick,  are  not  the  language  of  a  man  in 
his  ordinary  state  of  mind  ;  but  when  elevated  or  animated 
by  passion,  he  is  disposed  to  elevate  or  animate  all  his  ob 
jects;  he  avoids  familiar  names,  exalts  objects  b\  circumlocu 
tion  and  metaphor,  and  gives  even  life  and  voluntary  action 
to  inanimate  beings.  In  this  heat  of  mind,  the  highest  poeti 
cal  flights  are  indulged,  and  the  boldest  similes  or  metaphors 
relished.  Our  Professor,  doubtless,  experienced  all  this,  and 
perhaps  more,  when  he  invented  the  above  descriptive  per 
sonification  of  the  embargo.  But  there  are  certain  rules  for 
figurative  writing,  which  cannot  be  transgressed' with  impu 
nity  ;  and  the  Professor  should  have  recollected  that  even  the 
poets  have  not  the  privilege  of  altering  the  nature  of  things,  and 
bestowing  attributes  upon  a  subject  to  which  they  do  not  be 
long.  Now  the  embargo,  being  a  mere  withdrawing  from 
action,  can  never,  by  any  force  of  imagination,  be  supposed 
to  possess  the  power  of  dashing  or  striking.  To  test  the  cor- 
2-ectness  of  his  figure,  let  us  suppose  the  Professor  to  have  va 
ried  the  phrase  a  little,  and  to  have  expressed  himself  thus  .: 
<c  The  tortoise,  by  drawing  his  head  within  his  shell,  dashed 
the  love-inspiring  beverage  from  the  lips  of  those  gnats  who 
had  been  regaling  on  his  blood."  There  is,  we  fear,  hardly 
any  imagination  quite  ductile  enough  to  be  brought  to  ac 
commodate  itself  to  this. 

Here  we  close  our  remarks  on  those  blemishes,  whu'ch, 
sanctioned  by  such. high  authority,  might  become  the  objects 
of  imitation.  We  are  persuaded  that  the  learned  Professor, 
if  he  wraild  take  that  trouble,  could  point  out  many  which 
have  escaped  our  notice.  By  so  doing,  he  would  greatly  add 
-to  the  obligation  he  has  conferred  on  his  fellow  citizens. 


[     21     3 


The  following,  to  the  commencement  of  the  remarks  on  thy 
(<  Honourable  Senator,"  is  from  the  New-England  Palla 
dium  of  April  22. 

FEW  men,  in  our  country,  have  had  so  great  advantages 
in  their  early  education  as  Mr.  Adams,  and  few  have  been 
more  industrious  in  their  subsequent  cultivation  of  letters. 
Hence  it  was  natural  that  he  should  have  the  reputation  of 
an  accomplished  scholar,  and  that  his  style  should  be,  by  ma 
ny,  considered  as  a  model  of  fine  writing.  In  whatever  per 
tains  to  the  belles  lettres,  his  claims  to  pre-eminence  have 
not  been  questioned,  and  his  authority  in  matters  of  taste  and 
criticism,  has  been  inconsiderately  admitted  as  conclusive. 
In  the  reviews,  journals,  and  newspapers,  of  our  own  country, 
he  has  been  regarded  as  a  literary  Hercules,  who  was  to  be 
kept  in  good  humour  by  flattery^,  rather  than  provoked  by 
criticism  ;  and  those  who  have  spoken  of  his  productions, 
(which  have  hitherto  passed  in  this  country  without  examina 
tion)  have  expatiated  on  their  beauties,  with  a  seeming  con 
sciousness  that  nothing  else  could  be  found. 

As  Mr.  Adams  has  declared,  in  this  letter,  that  it  was  in 
tended  for  publication,  it  doubtless  received  much  of  the  "  li 
ma?  labor,"  and  may  be  considered  as  a  fair  specimen  of  his 
style  and  manner  of  writing.  From  his  situation,  as  Profes 
sor  of  Oratory,  &c.  at  our  university,  no  less  than  from  the 
political  character  of  the  letter,  he  probably  expected  it  would 
undergo  a  strict  scrutiny,  and  was  careful  to  entitle  himself 
to  the  praise  of  fine  writing,  though  his  reasoning  should  fail 
of  the  wished-for  success. 

As  a  statesman,  the  excellencies  or  defects  of  Mr.  Adams's 
style  are  of  little  importance ;  but  as  an  officer  of  our  univer 
sity,  whose  duty  it  is  to  instruct  others  in  the  difficult  art  of 
writing  ivell,  they  are  worthy  of  some  examination.  I  in 
tend,  therefore,  to  make  some  remarks  on  this  letter  as  a 
mere  literary  performance,  and  if  I  should  disturb  the  preju 
dices  of  his  admirers,  they  may  take  their  satisfaction  by 
proving  me  in  the  wrong. 

It  is  a  common  fault  with  very  young  writers  to  be  diffuse; 
and  of  course  feeble.  It  is  pardonable  in  them,  because  they 
are  young.  The  "  Sesquipcdalia  verba,"  and  the  grand, 
swelling  period,  are  very  apt  to  charm  their  ears,  and  they 
rarely  fail  to  keep  the  sound  up,  though  the  srnse  may  fal 
ter.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  they  should  understand 
with  much  precision  the  force  of  worcls^  or  should  use  no 


t    22     § 

more  than  were  necessary  to  express  theft  meaning ;  but 
it  is  to  be  expected,  that  the  Professor  of  Oratory  should  be 
able  to  write  his  own  language,  not  only  with  grammatical 
correctness,  but  with  propriety,  perspicuity  and  elegance. 

The  following  are  instances  of  what  may  be  called  the 
.verbose,  or  amplified  style  :— 

*'  Towards  the  gentleman,  whose  official  station  re- 
t(  suits  from  the  confidence  of  the  same  Legislature,  by 
<f  whose  appointment  I  have  the  honour  of  holding  a  simi- 
f(  lar  trust,"  &c. 

Mr.  Pickering  and  Mr.  Adams  were  chosejo  senators  by  the 
same  state  legislature  ;  this  is  the  single  grain  of  wheat,  and 
the  rest  is  chaff. 

Again — "And  if  his  general  sense  of  his  official  duties 
"  would  bind  him  to  the  industrious  devotion  of  his  whole 
"  time  to  the  publick  business  of  the  session,"  &c. 

Not  a  little  skill  and  discrimination  are  required  in  the 
choice  of  epithets,  and  much  of  the  force  and  beauty  of 
style  depend  on  their  proper  USP.  In  the  above  quotation 
there  are  four  adjectives,  all  of  which  might  be  dismissed  with 
out  injury  to  the  sentiment.  It  is  true,  that  they  make  the 
sentence  more  sonorous,  though  they  add  nothing  to  its 
meaning,  nor  serve  to  mark  the  ideas  with  greater  precision. 
Stripped  of  its  verbosity,  the  sentence  might  stand  thus — "  If, 
from  a  sense  of  duty,  he  sfeould  be  induced  to  devote  his  whole 
time  to  the  business  of  the  sesiion,"  &c. 

I  will  quote  one  or  two  more  sentences  of  the  same  cha 
racter,  and  leave  them  without  remark : 

"  Nor  can  I  forbear  to  remark  [upon]  the  tendency  of  such* 
"  antagonizing*  appeals  to  detract  the  councils  of  the  state 
(<  in  its  own  Legislature,  to  destroy  its  influence,  and  expose 
«  it  to  derision  in  the  presence  of  its  sister  states,  and  to  pro- 
<e  duce  between. the  colleagues  themselves  mutual  asperities 
<c  and  rancours,  until  the  great  concerns  of  the  nation  would 
"  degenerate  into  the  puny  controversies  of  personal  alterca- 
"  tion." 

QUKRY — How  could  the  great  concerns  of  the  nation  de 
generate  into  puny  controversies?  The  Professor  intended 
to  say  that  the  members,  in  place  of  being  occupied  with 
great  concerns,  would  be  busied  in  puny  controversies ;  and 
again,  is  not  the  last  sentence  gross  tautology  ?  To  test  this, 
we  will  reverse  it,  and  it  will  read  as  well,  "  Into  the  pimy 
altercations  of  personal  controversy.'Wlt  is  indeed  better, 
though  bad. 

*  That'g  au  ill  phrase,  a  vile  \>lif&$&+-4iitagonizir}g  is  a  vile  phrase 


I    S3    ] 

In  the  following  sentences,  verbosity  is  not  the  only  fault'? 

(f  The  answer  to  "War  in  Disguise  was  ascribed  to  a  gei£ 
"  tlemen  whose  talents  are  universally  acknowledged,  and 
"  who  by  his  official  situation!  had  been  required  thoroughly 
"  to  investigate  every  question  of  conflict  between  neutral 
"  and  belligerent  rights,"  &c. 

Every  question  between  neutral  and  belligerent  rights  is  a 
eonflfcting  question  ;  but  what  is  a  question  of  conflict  ?  There 
are  questions  of  law,  of  fact,  of  right,  of  expediency,  &c. ;  but 
what  is  a  question  of  conflict,  but  a  question  whether  there  is 
a  conflict  or  not  ? 

((  This  accumulated  mass  of  legal  learning,  of  commercial 
c<  information,  and  of  national  sentiment,  from  almost  every 
"  inhabited  spot  upon  our  shores,  and  from  one  extremity  of 
"  the  union  to  the  other,  confirmed  by  the  unanswered  and 
"  unanswerable  memorial  of  Mr.  Monroe  to  the  British  mi* 
"  nister,  and  by  the  elaborate  research  and  irresistible  rea- 
**  soning  of  the  examination  of  the  British  doctrine,  was  also 
"  made  a  subject  of  full  and  deliberate  discussion  in  the  se- 
«  nate  of  the  United  States." 

I  do  not  believe,  though  Mr.  Adams  asserts  the  fact,  that 
the  senate  of.the  United  States  were  employed  in  deliberate* 
ly  discussing  this  accuntulated  mass  of  legal  learning,  &c. 
which  came  from  almost  every  inhabited  spot  on  our  shores^ 
«nd  also  from  one  extremity  of  the  union  to  the  other,  con' 
Jirmed  as  it  was,  &c.  &c.  The  senate,  I  grant,  might  have 
been  employed  in  discussing  the  subjects,  the  questions,  whichy 
iu  various  parts  of  the  country,  had  produced,  or  called  forth, 
this  mass  of  learning,  &c. 

Again — "  If  the  alarm  was  groundless,  it  must  very  soon 
"  be  disproved,  and  the  Embargo  might  be  removed  with, 
"  the  danger. 

Here  is  some  confusion  among  the  tenses,  and  still  more 
in  the  sentiment.  The  writer  meant  to  say,  that  if  the  alarm 
was  groundless,  it  would  very  soon  appear  to  be  so,  and  the 
embargo  might  then  be  removed,  &c.  but  he  has  contrived  to 
assert  the  contrary,  by  saying,  that  if  the  alarm  was  ground 
less  it  must  very  soon  be  disproved,  i.  e.  proved  to  be  real,  ojc 
to  have  good  foundation,  and  the  embargo  might  be  remov 
ed,  &c. 

Again — "  The  most  enormous  infractions  of  our  rights, hi- 
"  therto  committed  by  her  (France)  have  been  more  in  me* 
f<  nace  than  in  accomplishment." 

If  a  spectator,  in  giving  an  account  of  a  personal  combat, 
•should  say,  in  a  letter  t.o  hjs  friend,  that  the  most  terribVe 


f     24     ] 

blows  A  gave  B  were  more  in  menace  than  accomplishment, 
he  would  write  like  the  Professor  of  Oratory. 

(C  In  the  mean  time  Admiral  Berkeley,  by  a  court  martial  of 
u  his  own  subordinate  officers,  hung  one  of  the  men  taken 
(f  from  the  Chesapeake,  and  called  his  name  JenkinRatford." 

Mr.  Adams  does  not  positively  assert  that  the  man  was  tried, 
but  merely  that  Admiral  Berkeley  Jirst  hung  him  by  a  court 
martial,  and  called  his  name  Jenkin  Ratford  afterwards. 

Again — <f  But  whenever  the  case  occurs  that  this  sense, 
*e  &c.  it  ought  surely  to  be  predicated  upon  a  full  and  im- 
"  partial  consideration  of  the  whole  subject — not  under  the 
cc  stimulus  of  a  one-sided  representation,  far  less  upon  the  im- 
<e  pulse  of  conjectures  and  suspicions." 

The  word  "predicated"  is?  here  used  improperly.  Mr. 
Adams,  no  doubt,  is  a  logician  ns  well  as  a  rhetorician,  and 
well  knows  that  the  predicate  is  that  which  is  affirmed  of 
the  subject  in  a  proposition,  ft  is  here  used  as  synonimous 
v/ith  founded,  which  is  a  perversion  of  the  true  meaning  of 
the  word.  As  to  the  stimulus  of  a  one-sided  representation, 
and  the  impulse  of  conjectures,  &c.  they  may  pass  for  this 
time  without  remark. — te  \Vitbout  hearing  the  counter  state* 
tnent  of  the  other  side."* — And  from  whence  should  the 
counter  statement  come,  if  not  from  the  other  side  ? 

"  Between  this  unqualified  submission,  and  offensive  re- 
"  sistance  against  the  war,".  &c. 

Piesistance  implies  a  previous  aggression,  and  what  is  the 
exact  difference  between  offensive  resistance  and  defensive 
aggression  ? 

Figurative  language. — "  In  our  republican  government, 
€C  where  the  power  of  the  nation  consists  alone  in  the  sympa- 
fe  thies  of  opinion,  this  reciprocal  deference,  this  open-hearted 
"  imputation  of  honest  intentions,  is  the  only  adamant  at  once 
€t  attractive  and  impenetrable,  that  can  bear,  unshattered,  all 
"  the  thunder  of  foreign  hostility."  This  sentence,  spoken 
at  a  college  exhibition,  would  be  followed  by  loud  and  reitera 
ted  applause.  It  is  a  most  imposing  sentence,  and  becomes 
the  mouth  well ;  but  it  has,  nevertheless,  a  trifling  defect., 
Rhetorical  writers  inform  us,  that  metaphors,  comparisons,  - 
&c.  are  founded  on  some  resemblance,  expressed  or  implied  : 
but  where  is  the  resemblance  between  reciprocal  deference,  or 
even  open-hearted  imputations  of  honest  intentions,  and  ada 
mant  attractive  as  well  as  impenetrable  ? 

*  This  rerchids  us  of  the  advertisement  of  a  London  Cobler— "  Moved- 
r>rer  opposite  to  folhcr  side  of  the  tvay" 

Query y  ^Vhich  side  of  the  way  did  the  Cobler  live  ? 


•      (    25     3 

**  It  (the  Embargo)  has  dashed  the  philter  of  pillage  from 
«f  the  lips  of  Rapine."*  If,  after  an  attentive  consideration  of 
this  rhetorical  flourish,  the  reader  can  make  iiothing  of  it,  let 
him  apply  to  the  Professor  of  Oratory  for  information., 

Bad  Grammar. — "  It  is  but  little  more  than  two  years 
€€  since  this  question  was  agitated  both  in  England  and 
"  America,  with  as  much  zeal,  energy  and  ability,  as  ever 
"  was  [were]  displayed,"  &c. — "  If  the  voice  of  reason  and 
"  of  justice  could  be  heard  by  France  and  Spain,  they  would 
«  say" — Who  would  say  ?  France  and  Spain  ?  They  form 
the  last  antecedent ;  but  that  makes  nonsense.  Is  it  voice  ? 
That  is  in  the  singular,  and  cannot  be  the  antecedent  to  they. 
Is  voice  to  be  understood  before  the  word  justice  ?  So  be  it. — 
ff  Because  with  the  demand  for  satisfaction  upon  that  injury"— 
<r  and  omission  sacrifices  no  national  right."  From  the  pe 
rusal  of  several  preceding  paragraphs,  it  seems  at  least  proba 
ble,  that  Mr.  Adams  intended  to  say,  that  Mr.  Pickering's 
omission  ta  notice  the  British  orders  of  council,  sacrifices,  &c — 
"  And  on  such  a  sudden  unnoticed  interdiction,  of  pouncing 
"  upon  all  neutral  commerce,"  &c.  Travelling  back  a  few 
sentences  it  appears,  that  it  is  the  right  which  the  British 
claim  of  pouncing,  &c. — "  Yet  although  thus  unauthentira- 
"  ted,  and  even  although  thus  in  some  sort  denied,  the  proba- 
<f  bility  of  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  anoun* 
f(  ced,"  &c.  N.  B.  The  antecedent  to  they  is  in  the  prece 
ding  paragraph. 

Mistakes  of  the  Printer. — "  Every  phantom  of  fear  and 
"  jealousy  is  evoked"  for  invoked.  The  imaginary  terrours 
of  Napoleon — or  which  is  the  same  thing.  Napoleon's  imagi 
nary  terrors — for  our  dread  of  Napoleon's  power,  &c.  "  We 
(<  examined  it  chiefly  as  affecting  the  principles  as  between  a 
"  belligerent  and  a  neutral  power" — one  as  too  many. 

I  will  now  quote  a  few  sentences  for  the  consideration  of 
scholars,  and  leave  them  without  remark. 

"  Sometimes  they  cooly  return,  that  there  is  no  such  man 
**  on  board  the  ship :  and  what  has  become  of  him,  the  ago- 
"  nies^  of  a  wife  and  children  in  his  native  land,  may  be  left 
"  to  conjecture." — "  The  wisdom  of  the  Embargo  is  a  ques- 
*<  tion  of  great  but  transient  magnitude,  and  omission^  sactf* 
'!  fices  no  national  right." — "  Subjects  upon  which  it  is  my 

*  BAYES — "  Now  mark  that  allegory  I  is  not  that  good !  •" 
Yes — that  grasping  a  storm  with  your  eye,  is  admirable  ! 

t  Mark  that  delightful  personification  !  BELLA  CR.USCA. 

$  Another  !  by  all  that's  beautiful '  ANNA  MATILDA, 

F, 


[    26    ] 

"  misfortune,  in  the  discharge  of  my  duties  as  a  Senator  of* 
€t  the  United  States>  to  differ  from  the  opinions  of  my  col- 
«  league."  "  The  place  where  the  question  upon  the  first  of 
'*  them;  in  common  with  others  of  great  national  concern^ 
"  was,  bet-ween  him  and  me,  in  our  official  capacities,  a  proper 
«  subject  of  discussion,  was  the  Senate  of  the  Union."  "  It 
«  is  not  by  the  light  of  blazing  temples,  and  amid  the  groans 
"  ofwomen  and  children  perishing  in  the  ruins  of  the  sanctua- 
"  ries  of  domestick  habitation  at  Copenhagen,  that  we  can  ex- 
**  pect  our  re  monstrances  -agahrst  this  course  of  proceeding 
«  will  be  heard." 

Speaking  of  his  attempt  to  controul  the  embargo,  Mr. 
Adams  observes,  that  "he  is  not  sufficiently  confident  in  the 
<e  superiority  of  his  own  wisdom  to  appeal  by  a  topical  appli- 
ft  cation*  to  the  congenial  feelings  of  any — not  even  of  hifi 
"  own  native  section  of  the  Union." — Ohe  !  jam  satis  est. 

I  might  pursue  this  subject  much  further,  but  from  the  pre 
ceding  specimens  of  Mr.  Adams's  style,  there  is  little  hazard 
in  saying  generally,  that  it  is  verbose  and  obscure.  His  sen 
tences  are  often  ungrammatical,  and  their  structure  inartifi 
cial  and  confused.  They  are  frequently  loaded  with  circum 
stances,  unskilfully  introduced,  and  enfeebled  with  tautolo- 
gous  expressions.  In  his  choice  of  words,  he  lacks  that  deli 
cate  discrimination,  so  necessary  to  express  the  different 
shades  of  thought,  and  multiplies  epithets  with  no  other  ap 
parent  view,  than  merely  to  round  his  periods. 

On  the  whole,  this  pamphlet,  as  the  production  of  a  States 
man,  will  do  no  credit  to  Mr.  Adams. 

It  is  called  a  letter  <f  on  the  present  state  of  our  national 
€€  affairs,  with  remarks,"  &c. 

The  first  eight  pages  are  occupied  with  his  objections  to 
the  propriety  of  writing  at  all  to  the  Legislature,  and  the  mo 
tives  which  impelled  him  to  the  same  task.  The  remaining 
twenty-three  are  filled  with  remarks  on  Mr  Pickering's  let 
ter.  In  reading  the  letter  of  Mr.  Adams,  we  very  soon  lose 
sight  of  the  "  present  state  of  our  national  affairs,"  and  find 
ourselves  in  company  with  a  gentleman  who  hardly  suppres 
ses  his  ill-humour  sufficiently  to  make  the  customary  profes 
sions  of  candour  and  respect  for  his  colleague.  It  is  impossi 
ble  not  to  perceive  that  he  writes  with  the  keen  feelings  of 
an  adversary,  eager  in  the  pursuit,  and  little  scrupulous  about 
the  means,  he  uses  to  discredit  his  opponent.  We  therefore 

*  Topical  application!  that's  very  well— I  owe  you  one. 

OLLAFOD. 


[    27    1 

find  that  tt  the  present  state  of  our  national  affairs  *  has  «ie/ 
generated,  in  Mr.  Adams's  hands,  into  the  puny  controversies 
of  personal  altercation. 

We  have  now  done  with    the    Learned  Professor,  and 
come  to  the  Honourable  Senator. 

WE  cannot  refrain  from  suggesting  to  the  Honourable 
Senator  the  impropriety  of  those  harsh  terms  which  he  has 
applied  to  a  foreign  nation.  It  is  of  some  importance  *o  the 
character  of  our  country,  and  perhaps  to  her  interest,  that 
those  who  are  charged  with  the  conduct  of  our  affairs  (in  re 
lation  to  other  powers)  should  not  violate  established  princi 
ples  of  decorum.  Men  who  have  a  proper  sense  of  personal 
dignity  will  avoid  indecency  for  their  own  sakes.  Other 
men  ought  to  avoid  it  from  a  sense  of  duty.  We  entreat  the 
Honourable  Senator  to  reflect  on  what  he  feels  at  the  perusal 
of  any  thing  which  has  been  said  or  written  injurious  to  the 
interest  or  character  of  his  own  country.  If  he  should  be  ta 
ken  for  the  mouth-piece  of  his  friends  (whom  we  heartily 
congratulate  on  their  acquisition)  may  it  not  be  concluded 
that  the  rulers  of  America  are  hostile  to  England  ?  He  has 
cited  what  happened  at  Copenhagen.  The  reason  assigned 
by  the  British  Ministers,  for  bombarding  that  city,  was  a  con 
viction  that  Denmark  would  soon  be  numbered  among  their 
foes,  which  made  it  their  duty  to  deprive  her  of  the  means  of 
annoyance.  Ifasimilarconviction  should  be  produced  respecting 
America,  and  a  similar  result  should  follow,  it  would  be  but  a 
poor  consolation  to  the  victims  of  hostility,  that  it  had  been 
provoked  by  the  style  of  the  Honourable  John  Q,.  Adams.  A 
publication  of  that  sort,  without  a  name,  would  be  a  thing  of 
little  consequence,  because  it  is  easy  for  the  servants  of  a 
great  monarch  to  despise  anonymous  slander :  but  we  should 
be  sorry  that  contempt  were  extended  to  Senators  of  the 
United  States.  And  yet,  we  put  it  to  the  Honourable  Sena 
tor,  if  (changing  the  circumstances)  he  would  not  feel  himself 
in  a  dilemma  between  contempt  and  indignation?  Let  him 
then  consider  that  British  Ministers  have  also  the  feelings  of 
men.  He  would  not  be  the  object  of  their  contempt.  Does 
he  desire  that  their  power  should  be  exercised  against  his 
country  ?  If  not,  why  did  he,  pending  a  negotiation,  (a  time 
which  he  deems  so  critical)  heap  up  every  brand  of  wrath,  to 
make  hot  the  fire  of  resentment  ?  We  premise  that  the  Ho 
nourable  Senator  appears,  from  his  own  shewing,  to  be  deep 
in  the  confidence  of  our  Administration.  He  tells  us  that 
Jew  of  the  facts  he  shall  relate  rest  on  information  peculiar 


r  ^s  ] 

to  himself;  and  again  be  tells  us,  "The  French  Emperor  had 
"  not  declared  that  he  would  have  no  neutrals.  He  had  not 
"  required  that  our  ports  should  be  shut  against  British  Com- 
*'  merce."  Thus  the  Honourable  Senator  has  pledged  himself 
Stoutly  to  two  negations.  Did  he  do  this  rashly  and  unadvi* 
sedly  ?  If  he  did,  the  pledge  is  not  worth  a  rush.  Did  he  re 
ceive  information  from  the  President,  or  Secretary  of  State  ? 
If  not  received  from  (or  through)  the  foreign  department,  the 
information  is  futile.  If  so  received,  two  conclusions  result : 
first,  his  confidence  in  the  government,  by  pledging  his  cha 
racter  on  their  assurance  ;  secondly,  their  confidence  in  him, 
shewn  by  the  communication  of  what  was  withheld  from 
others  ;  not  merely  from  Federalists,  but  from  old  and  approv 
ed  Democrats,  who  spoke  and  voted  against  the  measures 
proposed,  on  the  ground  of  those  French  declarations  which 
Mr.  Adams  denies.  From  these  two  conclusions  it  results 
further,  that  the  opinions  he  has  promulgated,  and  the  feel? 
ings  he  has  expressed,  are  in  very  truth  the  opinions  and  feel 
ings  of  the  American  Cabinet.  But  that  his  doctrines,  as 
well  as  his  sentiments,  are  adverse  to  England,  and  favoura 
ble  to  France,  no  man  can  doubt  who  reads  his  publication. 
Hence  England  may  fairly  infer  that  the  American  councils 
are  hostile  to  her,  and  partial  to  her  enemy.  We  submit  to 
the  Honourable  Senator's  consideration,  however,  one  little 
circumstance  :  Is  he  sure  that  in  this  business  he  has  not 
been  duped  ?  If  it  should  turn  out  that  the  French  Emperor 
has  made  substantially  the  declarations  so  positively  denied, 
will  he  say  that  his  new  friends  took  advantage  of  his  eager 
ness  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  their  smiles,  and  gave  him  as 
surances,  which,  like  the  language  of  Macbeth's  Witches, 
though  true  to  the  ear,  were  false  to  the  sense  ?  Will  he  ac 
knowledge  that,  besotted  by  his  own  vanity,  he  committed 
himself  fully  on  a  half  confidence  ?  This  would  give*  him  a 
life-rent  of  ridicule.  Will  he,  to  avoid  the  imputation  of  be 
ing  gulled,  declare  that,  knowing  the  truth,  he  contradicted 
the  words  only  and  not  the  substance,  of  threats  ascribed  to 
France  ?  If  he  does,  he  puts  a  brand  to  his  forehead  which 
no  balm  of  pity  can  efface.  Thus,  then,  he  stands  between 
the  world  and  Jefferson.  The  candour  of  the  former  is  pro 
verbial  :  the  truth  and  honour  of  the  latter  we  shall  say 
nothing  about ;  but  we  desire  it  may  be  remembered  that 
the  Honourable  John  Q,.  Adams  (a  Senator  from  the  State  of 
Massachusetts)  has  made  the  declaration  above  cited.  And 
now  we  proceed  to  consider  his  arguments. 

The  first  in  order,  as  well  as  in  place,  is  the  respect  due 
by  the  people  to  the  Decisions  made,  after  due  deliberation. 


t    20    3 

by  their  representatives  in  Congress.  The  Embargo,  he  tells 
us  "  was  discussed  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and, 
"  as  far  as  the  constitutional  authority  of  that  body  extended, 
c*  there  it  was  decided."  But  we  are  informed,  on  authority 
which  cannot  be  disputed,  that  the  bill  laying  an  embargo 
was  read  a  first,  a  second,  and  a  third  time,  and  passed  in 
the  Senate  in  four  hours ;  and  that  a  little  time  was  repeated 
ly  requested,  to  consider  and  obtain  information,  but  it  was 
denied.  We  ask,  then,  what  Mr.  Adams  meant  by  telling 
his  fellow  citizens  the  Embargo  was  discussed  in  the  Senate, 
and  is  entitled  to  their  respect  and  obedience,  because  it  had 
obtained  a  like  concurrence  of  the  other  branch,  and  the  ap 
probation  of  the  President  ?  Let  any  man,  acquainted  with 
the  forms  of  publick  business,  estimate  the  time  required  for 
the  several  readings  of  the  bill,  the  votes  taken  on  each  read 
ing,  and  that  necessarily  consumed  in  asking  repeatedly  for  a 
little  delay,  and  then  see  how  much  will  be  left  for  discus 
sion.  The  President  recommends  a  measure  (which  we  be 
lieve  to  be  unconstitutional)  fraught  with  danger,  and  injuri 
ous  to  a  great  proportion  of  the  people.  The  Senate  hurry  it 
through  all  the  forms  established  to  prevent  the  evils  of  pre 
cipitate  resolutions,  in  the  short  space  of  four  hours;  the 
House  of  Representatives  concur,  in  the  same  rash  and  rapid 
manner  ;  after  which  the  President  (his  edict  being  thus  en- 
registered)  gives  to  his  obsequious  servants  the  nod  of  appro 
bation.  And  this  semblance,  this  shadow  of  a  law  ;  this  un 
constitutional  decree ;  this  contraband  ware  of  legislation, 
smuggled  through  the  publick  offices  .without  opening  the 
package  of  a  single  sentence,  without  examining  a  thread  in 
the  texture ;  this  foreign,  prohibited  commodity,  so  produced, 
so  introduced,  and  so  displayed,  is  recommended  to  freemen 
as  commanding  their  respect.  How  dare  you,  Mr.  Adams, 
declare,  in  the  very  teeth  of  truth,  that  the  bill  was  discussed 
in  the  Senate  ?  Under  what  pretext  will  you  attempt  to  de 
fend  your  veracity  ?  We  speak  not  of  candour  :  it  is  an  arti-> 
cle  so  entirely  useless  to  your  new  friends,  that  it  might  have 
been  prudent  to  get  rid  of  it,  if  any  had  fallen  to  your  lot : 
but,  sir,  how  will  you  reconcile  your  assertion  with  the  fact  ? 
Will  you  pretend  that  the  plump  vote  of  a  majority,  marshal 
led  and  disciplined  to  the  motions  of  their  fugleman,  is  a  dis 
cussion  ?  When  the  dearest  interests  of  a  country  are  stran 
gled  by  the  mutes  of  a  Grand  Signior,  how  dare  you  call  the 
murderous  deed  a  discussion? 

The  Honourable  Senator  tells  us  much  of  the  open-hearted- 
ness  he  has  always  preserved,  the  chanty  with  which  he  has 


[     30     ] 

interpreted  the  conduct  of  others,  his  frank  and  unsuspecting 
confidence.  We  are  thankful  for  the  information ;  which 
was  by  no  means  unnecessary.  The  world  (unjustly  no 
doubt)  had  characterized  him  as  jealous,  suspicious,  irrita 
ble  ;  one  of  those  <€  who  are  never  at  heart's  ease  when  they 
behold  a  greater  than  themselves."  But  he  must  know 
best  what  passes  in  his  own  bosom,  and  therefore  we  shall 
siot  listen  to  the  slanders  of  an  envious  world.  Let  him, 
however,  be  careful  that  he  do  not  invalidate  his  declara 
tions,  and  furnish  evidence  against  himself. 

The  Honourable  Senator  has  exhausted  his  powers  to  shew 
the  importance  of  three  points  which  his  colleague  had  sta 
ted,  as  the  only  ground  of  the  Embargo ;  and  yet,  speaking 
of  the  orders  of  the  British  Council  of  November  last, 
he  says : 

"  To  my  mind,  in  comparison  with  those  orders,  the  three 
((  causes  to  which  Mr.  Pickering  limits  our  grounds  for  a  rup- 
*c  ture  with  England  might  indeed  be  justly  denominated  pre- 
<c  tences.  In  comparison  with  them,  former  aggressions 
ff  sink  into  insignificance.  To  argue  upon  the  subjects  of  our 
**  disputes  with  Britain,  or  upon  the  motives  for  the  Embar- 
fc  go,  and  keep  them  out  of  sight,  is  laying  your  finger  upon 
"  the  units  before  a  series  of  noughts,  and  then  arithmetically 
"  proving  that  they  all  amount  to  nothing." 

Thus  he  not  only  gives  direct  assurance,  but  calls  in  the 
aid  of  a  violent  metaphor  to  shew,  that  in  his  opinion,  every 
other  cause  of  quarrel  with  England  was  insignificant,  was 
nothing,  in  comparison  with  those  orders. 

When  therefore  the  Honourable  Senator  takes  up  the 
question  of  impressment,  and  scolds  and  moans  and  groans 
through  nine  long  paragraphs  and  four  short  onee,  it  is  fair  to 
reply,  Very  fairly  spoken,  to  be  sure,  but  you  yourself  consi 
der  the  thing  as  insignificant.  And  when  again,  through  ten 
paragraphs  more,  he  plays  the  termagant  with  the  British  for 
their  rule  of  1756  ;  one  of  their  adherents  might  reply,  Lord, 
Sir !  Why  all  this  talk  about  nothing  ?  And  when  again, 
through  ten  other  paragraphs,  he  amuses  himself  and  his 
friends  by  stirring  up  the  embers  of  strife  to  the  tune  of  Ad 
miral  Berkeley,  some  wag  might  hint  that  it  is  beneath  Sena 
torial  dignity  to  act  a  part  in  the  comedy  of  Much  ado  about 
nothing. 

In  plain  and  sober  truth,  if  these  points  were  so  trivial, 
why  so  much  labour  to  shew  their  importance  ?  If  important, 
why  declare  them  to  be  insignificant ;  mere  cyphers  ?  As 
times  go,  it  might  be  austere  to  ask  for  consistency  of  con 


duct  |  but  really,  Mr.  Senator,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  a$k 
for  consistency  of  language,  at  least  for  the  space  of  one  let 
ter.  We  presume  not  to  expect  that  a  second  letter  shall 
consist  with  the  first.  As  to  aberrations  of  that  sort,  we  ac 
cept  beforehand  the  honest  apology  of  Tempora  mutanturr 
et  nos  mutamur  in  illis.  To  which  we  are  always  disposed> 
very  civilly,  to  reply — And  much  good  may  it  do  you.  But 
indeed  and  indeed  sir,  being  yankees,  and  having  at  heart 
the  honour  of  New-England,  we  wish  you  had  stuck  to  your 
text  in  what  you  composed  and  delivered  for  one  day's  edifi 
cation.  You  will  pardon  us  however,  if  in  deference  to  your 
declaration,  just  cited,  we  should  take  too  slight  a  notice  of 
these  aggressions,  which  sink  into  insignificance.  We  shall 
not  overlook  what  you  say  of  them,  lest  you  should  suppose 
we  are  wanting  in  respect. 

First,  then,  on  the  claim  of  Britain  to  take  her  seamen 
from  our  merchant  ships,  you  say  that  her  prescriptive  right 
cannot  apply  to  us  (who  are  but  lately  become  an  indepen 
dent  nation)  if  this  right  existed  only  against  us  while  colo 
nies  ;  for  that  in  such  case, 

€t  As  a  relict  of  colonial  servitude,  it  is  not  entitled  to  our 
a  submission." 

You  have  too  much  understanding  to  believe  it  was  your 
colleague's  intention*  that  America  should  submit  to  a  claim, 
involving  the  acknowledgment  of  her  dependence,  as  a  colo 
ny,  on  Great  Britain.  Yes,  sir,  you  have  too  much  under 
standing.  You  know  better.  If  we  take  no  further  notice 
of  what  you  say,  it  is  because  we  do  not  wish,  by  contrast 
ing  your  convictions  with  your  insinuations,  to  place  you  in  a 
position  alike  awkward  and  uneasy.  But  you  say  further, 

"  If  it  be  meant  that  the  right  has  been  claimed  and  exer- 
*<  cised  for  ages,  over  the  merchant  vessels  of  other  nations, 
"  I  apprehend  it  is  a  mistake.  The  case  never  occurred 
**  with  sufficient  frequency  to  constitute  a  practice,  much  less 
"  a  right.  If  it  had  been  either,  it  would  have  been  noticed 
«*  by  some  of  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations.  The  truth 
*c  is,  the  question  arose  out  of  American  independence,  from 
"  the  severance  of  one  nation  into  two.  It  never  was  made 
€*  a  question  between  any  other  two  nations.  There  is  there* 
*c  fore  no  right  of  prescription." 

To  this  we  reply,  that  the  silence  of  writers  on  publick  law 
(admitting  that  they  were  silent)  would  only  prove  that  ihe 
practice  was,  as  in  fact  it  was,  a  consequence  of  the  clear  ac 
knowledged  principle,  that  every  nation  has  a  right  to  the 
military  service  of  her  own  people,  You,  sir,  well  know. 


r  32  ] 

that  the  pretended  right  of  expatriation  is  of  novel  date,  and 
of  no  authority.  If  the  case  you  mention  did  not  frequently 
occur,  it  was  because  the  seamen  of  belligerent  powers  were 
seldom  in  the  employ  ot  other  states.  You  know  [and  if  not 
you  may  easily  learn)  that  it  has  been  the  ancient  practice  of 
England,  when  a  war  broke  out,  to  call  for  the  return  of  all 
seamen  and  seafaring  people,  by  a  Proclamation.  And  you 
know  (or  may  easily  learn)  that  France,  like  England,  has  in 
sisted  on  this  very  right,  and  maintained  it  by  her  practice  ; 
and  that  she  has  (during  this  very  war)  taken  her  seamen 
from  our  ships.  You  know  that  a  -contract  between  two  par 
ties  cannot  impair  the  validity  of  a  prior  contract  by  either, 
with  a  third  person,  nor  absolve  them  from  their  duties.  And 
when  you  speak  of  seamen  on  board  of  our  merchant  vessels 
as  being  ivithin  our  jurisdiction  upon  the  high  seas,  you  know 
that  you  advance  a  position  which,  if  maintained  to  the  extent, 
must  involve  every  neutral  nation  in  war.  If  enemies'  goods 
are  taken  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  neutral  power,  it  is  an  act 
of  hostility.  If  a  neutral  merchant  ship  (on  the  high  sea)is  within 
the  neutral  jurisdiction,  so  as  to  render  impressment  unlawful, 
she  is  equally  within  the  same  jurisdiction  to  every  other  pur 
pose  ;  consequently  all  the  cases  of  capture  of  enemies'  goods 
on  board  a  neutral  ship,  the  legality  of  which  has  been  ad 
mitted  from  the  earliest  times,  must  (according  to  your  doc 
trine)  be  hostile  aggressions.  We  will  not  follow  you  through 
the  turnings  and  doubling  of  which  the  subject  is  susceptible. 
We  all  now  know7,  and  from  the  relation  in  which  you  stood 
to  the  executive  department,  you  could  not  have  been  igno 
rant  (unless  indeed  they  fooled  you  with  half  confidence)  that 
Great-Britain  offered  so  to  restrain  the  practice  of  impressment 
as  to  re  medy  the  grievances  of  which  we  complain,  and  that 
Messrs.  Munroe  and  Pinckney  signed  a  treaty  in  the  firm  and 
honest  belief,  that  having  obtained  such  a  promise,  they  had 
substantially  provided  for  that  object  of  their  instructions. — 
They  supposed  it  was  the  wish  of  the  American  govern 
ment  to  protect  American  sailors,  and  never  suspected  a  de 
sign  to  embroil  the  two  countries  (against  their  will)  by  ex 
acting  from  the  British  ministers  a  formal  abandonment  of 
what  their  nation,  and  every  other  nation,  has  hitherto  con 
sidered  as  an  unquestionable  right.  A  thing  which  no  British 
Minister  dare  to  do ;  and  which  we,  as  a  Maritime  Power, 
ought  not  to  ask.  Our  negociators  were,  it  seems,  mistaken, 
and  the  Honourable  Mr.  John  Q,.  Adams  now  tells  us, 
(speaking  no  doubt  the  language  of  his  Excellency  Thomas 
Jefferson) 


i     33     ] 

u  I- would  subscribe  to  any  compromise  of  this  contest  COR- 
u  sistent  with  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  the  duties  of  hu- 
"  manityt  and  principles  of  reciprocity :  but  to  the  right  of 
"  forcing  even  her  own  subjects  out  of  our  merchant  vessels  on 
"  the  high  seas,  I  can  never  consent." 

That  is  to  say,  I  will  settle  the  matter  any  way  you  please, 
provided  it  be  in  the  single  way  I  please.  This  is  the  plain 
meaning,  when  stript  of  sounding  words  which  amount  to 
nothing.  The  article  (be  it  what  it  may)  if  reciprocal,  must 
consist  with  the  principles  of  reciprocity  and  the  rights  of  so 
vereignty  ;  because  it  must  acknowledge  the  same  rights  in 
each  sovereign.  As  for  the  duties  of  humanity,  they  are  the 
usual  stuffing  of  a  jacobin  sausage,  in  which  there  is  so  much 
seasoning  that  poor  humanity  gets  sadly  peppered.  If  the 
duties  of  humanity  are  to  be  invoked,  let  them  be  exerted 
in  making  such  honest  provisions  as  may  prevent  abuse  and 
consequent  suffering. 

In  respect  to  the  British  principle  of  1756,  so  called^  we 
hold  it  to  be  unfounded ;  and  the  less  worthy  of  attention,  as 
m  practice  it  has  long  been  relinquished,  except  a  small  rem-. 
ttant,  to  which  our  administration  seem  willing  to  submit. 
We  shall  take  no  special  notice  of  those  "  holiday  and  lady 
terms"  in  which  the  Honourable  Senator  likens  the  con 
duct  of  Great  Britain  to  the  crimes  of  poisoning  and  assassina 
tion  ;  or  rather  declares  it  to  be  a  greater  crime  than  either. 
We  insist  on  neutral  right  to  the  full  extent,  but  we  claim  no 
right  to  do  wrong.  We  claim  no  right  to  assist  one  enemy 
against  the  other.  If  our  fellow  citizens,  by  giving  such  as- 
sistance>  take  a  part  in  the  war,  and  in  consequence  thereof 
lose  their  effects,  we  cannot  think  them  entitled  to  call  on 
the  nation  for  redress.  Besides,  the  principle  of  1756  was 
not  (as  the  Honourable  Senator  seems  to  suppose)  justified  by 
Great  Britain,  solely  on  the  ground  that  neutrals  engaged  in 
trade  between  France  and  her  colonies  were  to  be  consider 
ed  as  being  in  that  respect  naturalized  by  Fiance.  Although 
it  was  maintained  as  a  principle  that  neutrals  could  not  trade 
in  time  of  war  beyond  what  they  had  been  accustomed  to  ia 
time  of  peace,  yet  it  was  declared  on  the  part  of  the  British 
King  in  answer  to  the  remonstrance  of  HoHand,  whose  ships 
had  been  confiscated  for  carrying  on  a  commerce  to  which 
they  were  in  fact  entitled  by  treaty  between  her  and  En 
gland,  that  it  was  necessary  to  his  Majesty's  success  in  the 
war ;  and  therefore  (being  an  act  of  necessity)  was  justified 
by  the  law  of  self-preservation ;  a  law  paramount  to  the  sti 
pulation  of  treaties.  It  is  not  for  us  to  split  fiairs  respecting 

P 


[     34    ] 

such  awful  conclusions.  On  the  one  hand,  it  cannot  be  de 
nied  that  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature  ;  and,  on 
the  otht- r,  it  must  be  admitted  that,  as  any  thing  may  be  jus 
tified  on  the  plea  of  necessity,  so  that  plea  ought  not  lightly 
to  be  made  or  admitted. 

But  the  Honourable  Senator  has  deduced,  as  a  natural  con 
sequence  from  the  principle  which  we  all  condemn,  the  decree 
which  Napoleon  made  at  Berlin ;  and  the  still  severer  decree 
which  he  made  at  Milan.  HP  tells  us,  indeed,  he  is  not  the 
apologist  of  France ;  and  he  did  right  in  saying  so,  because 
otherwise  we  could  have  viewed  him  in  no  other  light ;  but 
we  are  willing  to  believe  him  on  his  word  :  and  the  rather  as 
he  tells  us  that  "  if  the  voice  of  reason  and  justice  could  be 
"  heard  by  France,  they  would  tell  her  she  has  done  wrong." 
If  she  has  done  wrong,  if  her  conduct  is  condemned  by  rea 
son  and  justice,  it  cannot  be  considered  as  a  fair  and  natural 
consequence  from  the  conduct  of  Britain. 

At  the  time  when  Napoleon  issued  the  Berlin  decree,  by 
which  he  declared  the  British  dominions  in  a  state  of  block 
ade,  and,  by  necessary  inference,  that  all  vessels  trading  to  or 
from  them,  should  be  lawful  prize;  we  were  in  the  practice  of 
trading  freely  to  the  French  Islands,  and  of  trading  as  freely 
to  France.  The  only  impediment  laid  in  our  way,  by  En 
gland,  was,  that  we  should  not  go  directly  from  those  Islands 
to  Europe.  This  direct  trade  between  the  mother  country 
and  her  colonies,  inhibited  during  peace  by  the  general  poli 
cy  of  Europe,  and  only  permitted  in  war  to  cover  the  proper 
ty  from  pursuit  of  a  foe,  and  to  man  (with  the  seamen  pre 
viously  employed  to  transport  it)  the  national  fleets ;  this  di 
rect  trade  England  considered  as  the  trade  of  her  enemy.  A 
question  arose,  whether,  by  touching  in  our  way  at  an  Ameri 
can  port,  the  nature  of  a  voyage  between  the  colonies  and 
the  mother  country  was  materially  changed,  and  of  one,  be 
came  two  distinct  voyages ;  or  whether  it  must  be  considered 
as  one  continued,  unbroken  voyage,  only  lengthened  by  a 
few  leagues.  On  this  subject  a  piddling,  mercantile  spirit 
seems  to  have  shewn  itself  in  the  British  Court  of  Appeals, 
and  to  have  mingled  itself  in  the  decision  of  a  national  ques 
tion  :  a  sentence  was  pronounced,  which,  to  say  the  least, 
was  inconsiderate  :  a  sentence  which,  however,  did  not  ma 
terially  affect  our  trade,  but  which  affected  our  indepen 
dence  :  a  sentence  nevertheless,  which  it  would  seem  has 
not  offended  our  ruler?  ;  seeing  that  they  have  not  seriously 
objected  to  an  article  in  the  treaty  by  which  the  principle  of 
it  was  acknowledged,  Thus,  then,  while  we  enjoyed  a 


{     35     ] 

trade  with  all  the  world,  unlimited  but  by  a  circumstance  o!f 
slight  restriction ;  a  trade  which  gave  to  France  greater  ad 
vantages  than  she  ever  before  derived  from  neutral  naviga 
tion  ;  at  that  moment,  she  issued  the  decree  of  Berlin,  and  in 
terdicted,  under  pain  of  confiscation,  the  larger  half  of  our 
commerce.  She  interdicted  that  part  which  alone  is  essen 
tial  to  the  People.  It  is  notorious  that  the  greater  part  of 
our  traffick  with  the  East  and  West  Indies,  and  of  the 
consequent  traffick  with  Europe,  tends  to  enrich  our  Mer 
chants,  but  is  in  no  other  respect  of  importance.  But  the 
trade  with  England  provides  a  market  for  our  most  valuable 
productions,  and  affords  a  supply  of  what  we  most  want. 
A  greater  violation  of  our  rights,  therefore,  could  not  have 
been  made.  And  had  the  power  been  equal  to  the  will,  it 
would  have  occasioned  a  greater  plunder  of  our  property  than 
ever  was  experienced.  This  act  of  lawless  power,  giddy 
with  success,  and  drunk  with  prosperity,  being  announced  in 
England  at  the  moment  our  Commissioners  there  had  conclu 
ded  a  treaty,  the  British  monarch  declared,  in  a  spirit  of  ho 
nourable  candour  and  integrity,  that  if  it  should  be  executed, 
and  we  should  tamely  submit,  (neither  of  which  things  was 
supposed  to  be  possible)  he  reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  re 
taliation. 

After  the  lapse  of  many  months,  and  no  marks  of  opposition 
on  our  part,  he  has  exercised  that  right.  The  measure  of  re 
taliation  will  be  presently  considered.  And  will  any  man 
pretend  to  justify,  or  even  to  excuse,  the  French  Emperor's 
Berlin  decree,  on  the  grounds  on  which  it  was  avowedly 
made  ? 

It  shall  not  be  denied  that  he  might  treat  us  as  we  suffered 
ourselves  to  be  treated  by  his  enemy.  If  the  act  of  the  one 
was  founded  in  right,  so  of  course  must  be  that  of  the  other. 
If  wrong,  our  submission  to  the  wrong  was  taking  part  so 
far  with  his  enemy,  as  to  give  him  the  righi  of  exacting 
from  us  an  equal  submission.  But  to  contend  that  we,  by 
not  sacrificing  all  our  ships,  our  seamen,  and  our  goods,  to 
vindicate  a  claim  to  the  carrying  trade  between  enemy  colo 
nies  and  the  mother  country,  (a  claim  never  yet  acknowledg 
ed  by  the  great  commercial  powers)  thereby  gave  the  French 
Emperor  a  right  to  violate  the  established  principles  of  the 
law  of  nations,  and  deprive  us  not  only  of  commercial  privi 
leges,  but  of  our  sovereignty  and  independence,  in  an  asser 
tion  so  pregnant  with  absurdity,  so  shocking  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  that  it  would  be  ao  insult  to  our  readers  if 
we  should  say  one  syllable  in  refutation.  And  yet  this  is 
what  the  Honourable  Senator  insists  on,  if  not  w  the  plainest 


I     36     j 

and  most  direct  terms,  by  the  most  necessary  and  unavoida 
ble  inference.  We  leave  it  with  him  and  bis  friends.  They 
will  need  all  their  eloquence  and  all  their  art  to  answer  at 
the  bar  of  a  people  impoverished,  roused,  insulted  ;  of  a  people 
\vhomust  be  driven  almost  to  madness  when  they  shaSl  dis 
cover  the  vast  sacrifice  which  has  been  made  of  their  proper 
ty,  their  honour,  and  their  independence. 

The  Honourable  Senator  introduces  his  remarks  on  the  af 
fair  of  the  Chesapeake,  by  reiterating  the  declaration  that  he 
Is  not  suspicious,  and  says,  ht?  would  believe  the  British  minis 
ters  when  they  profess  a  desire  to  make  reparation,  if  their 
professions  were  not  contradicted  by  facts.  Here  we  have  a 
charge  of  insincerity  and  falsehood,  made' by  an  honourable 
gentleman,  who  proclaims,  in  the  same  breath,  his* frankness 
and  candour.  He  appeals  to  facts.  Has  he  then  told  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  ?  This,  as  a 
man  of  honour,  he  was  bound  to  do 

He  states  as  facts,  1st,  that  Mr.  Rose  was  not  informed  of 
the  Orders  of  Council  of  November.  2dly,  That  reparation 
was  not  made  in  England  only  because  our  President  had 
coupled  with  his  demand  of  satisfaction  on  that  subject  a 
similar  demand  on  other  subjects.  3dly,  That  reparation 
%vas  onry  offered  in  general  term?,  but  without  any  specifick 
proposals.  4thly,  That  Mr.  Rose,  upon  his  arrival,  coupled 
\vith  the  question  of  reparation  a  question  foreign  to  it,  viz. 
the  president's  proclamation.  6thly,  That  they  did  not  give 
np  their  opinion  till  the  British  government  disavowed  the 
act.  7thly,  That  admiral  Berkeley  approved  of  that  opinion. 
Sthly,  That  it  was  said  Mr.  Canning  supported  the  same 
opinion  ia  council,  but  was  overruled.  lOthly,  That  Berke 
ley  was  applauded  in  the  ministerial  newspapers.  Hthly, 
That  many  in  England  call  loudly  for  war  with  America. 
12thly,  That  a  nobleman  declared  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
that  the  right  of  searching  ships  of  war  should  be  maintained 
against  America,  but  disclaimed  as  to  other  nations.  ISthly, 
That  Admiral  Berkeley,  by  a  court  martial,  of  his  own  subor 
dinate  officers,  hung  one  of  the  men  taken  from  the  Chesa- 
•peake.  14thly,  That  the  Admiral  called  this  man  Jenkin 
Ratford,  though  he  was  taken  from  the  Chesapeake  by  the 
name  of  Wilson.  15thly,  That  although  it  has  been  said 
this  man  was  proved  to  be  Ratford,  and  confessed  himself  to 
be  Ratford,  yet  it  has  also  been  said  that  Ratford  is  now  living 
in  Pennsylvania.  lOthly,  That  after  the  disavowal  rnade  of 
the  Admiral's  conduct  by  his  own  government,  no  confidence 
can  be,  due  to  a  court  martial  held  to  sanction  his  proceed 


[     37     ] 

ings.  17thly,  That  although  the  three  other  men  were  ta 
ken  from  the  Chesapeake  by  the  sole  authority  of  the  British 
searching  Lieutenant,  there  was  not  the  shadow  of  a  pre 
tence  that  they  were  British  subjects,  yet  they  were  senten 
ced  to  suffer  death.  ISthly,  That  Admiral  Berkeley,  when 
he  left  Halifax,  received  a  complimentary  address  from  the 
colonial  assembly ;  and  told  them,  in  his  answer,  that  he  had 
no  official  information  of  his  recall.  19thly,  That  after 
wards,  on  leaving  Bermuda,  he  was  highly  complimented  by 
that  colonial  assembly,  with  a  manifest  reference  to  the  affair 
,pf  the  Chesapeake. 

Having  stated  and  commented  on  these  his  facts,  the  Ho 
nourable  Senator  concludes  thus : 

"  Under  all  these  circumstances,  without  applying  any  of 
<rc  the  maxims  of  a  suspicious  policy  to  the  British  profes- 
"  sionsf  I  may  still  be  permitted  to  believe  that  their  ministry 
"  never  seriously  intended  to  make  us  honourable  reparation 
"  at  all." 

How  very  fearful  is  the  Honourable  Senator  that  he  should 
be  deemed  suspicious!  How  very  anxious  to  defend  himself 
against  the  charge,  when  no  such  charge  is  made !  Ah !  MJT. 
Senator,  this  same  thing  called  conscience  is  very  trouble 
some.  It  will  stare  folks  in  the  face;  ay,  and  put  them  out 
of  countenance  too.  But  did  ever  any  man  see  such  facts 
stated  to  support  such  an  inference  ?  Here  are  nineteen  alle 
gations,  of  which  the  last  fifteen,  if  true,  are  either  foreign  to 
the  question,  or  tend  to  establish  the  reverse  of  what  they 
were  adduced  to  prove.  Let  us  cast  an  eye  at  them. 

The  fifth,  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  allegations  of  the  Ho 
nourable  Senator  shew  that  some  of  our  own  citizens,  and 
many  British  subjects,  considered  the  conduct  of  Berkeley  as 
justified  by  the  previous  provocation;  and  that,  wonderful  to- 
tell!  Berkeley  was  such  an  odd  fellow  as  to  approve  of  opin 
ions  favourable  to  his  own  conduct:  Th erefore,  says  this 
Honourable  Man,  the  British  Cabinet  was  insincere.  His 
ninth  allegation  is,  that  Mr.  Canning  held  the  same  heterodox 
opinion,  but  was  overruled  by  the  other  Ministers  :  And  there 
fore,  says  this  Honourable  Man,  the  Cabinet  which  overruled 
him  was  insincere.  His  tenth  and  eleventh  allegations  are, 
that  ministerial  prints  advanced  the  same  abominable  opinion, 
and  many  British  subjects  called  for  war  with  America  :  There 
fore,  says  this  Honourable  Man,  the  Administration,  which, 
resisting  the  clamour  and  the  call  for  war,  held  out  the 
.olive  branch  of  reparation  to  preserve  peace,  was  insincere. 
Thus  when  Washington,  the  great  and  the  good,  stemming 


f    ss   ] 

the  -torrent  of  popular  delusion,  proclaimed  the  neutrality  of 
America,  *nd  maintained  it  in  spite  of  a  jacobin  faction  ; 
when  the  honest  man  who  succeeded  him,  walking  in  the 
same  honourable  path,  exposed  himself  to  every  shaft  of  ma 
lice  which  the  same  faction  could  shoot ;  these  patriots,  these 
true  Americans,  were  called  insincere. 

But  the  ministerial  prints  defended  Berkeley.  And  is  this 
the  unerring  standard  by  which  to  decide  ?  Will  our  rulers 
consent  to  be  judged  by  the  same  standard  ?  Look  at  the 
prints  which  support  them  ;  see  the  constant,  the  earnest  ef 
forts  to  plunge  America  into  a  war  with  England.  Then  see 
their  constant,  their  earnest  protestations  of  amity,  of  neutra 
lity,  of  the  love  of  justice,  and  of  peace.  Does  this  Honoura 
ble  Man,  now  that  he  is  let  into  the  secret,  judging  the  con 
duct  of  others  by  that  of  his  friends,  impute  to  the  councils  of 
England  that  duplicity  which  marks  our  own  ! 

His  12th  allegation  is,  that  a  member  of  the  British  Senate 
(a  friend  to  the  administration)  proposed  to  maintain,  respect 
ing  us,  a  claim  which  should  be  abandoned  as  to  other  na 
tion  s  :  And  therefore  this  Honourable  Man  concludes  the  ad- 
ministration  which  frankly  disavowed  that  claim  respecting 
us,  to  have  been  insincere.  The  disavowal  was  first  made 
specially  to  the  diplomatick  representative  of  our  nation  ;  then 
publickly  by  proclamation  to  all  the  civilized  societies  of  man. 
But  a  lord  it  seems  has  disapproved  of  that  disavowal  so  far 
as  it  regards  us :  Such  at  least  is  the  Honourable  Senator's  in 
terpretation  of  a  speech  in  which  others  can  find  no  such  idea. 
But  had  it  been  expressed  distinctly,  will  the  solitary  senti 
ment  of  an  individual  in  opposition  to  a  publick  official  act  of 
the  greatest  notoriety,  prove  the  falsity  of  that  act  ?  A  man 
promises  to  pay  a  debt,  and  as  evidence  of  the  promise  gives 
a  bond,  after  which  one  of  his  friends  declares,  that  in  his 
opinion  nothing  was  due,  that  his  friend  had  been  cheated, 
and  ought  not  to  have  given  the  bond.  On  the  ground  of 
this  declaration,  a  gentleman  (boasting  of  his  candour)  insists 
that  the  obligor  never  meant  to  pay. 

His  13th  14th  and  15th  allegations  are,  that  Admiral 
Berkeley,  by  the  agency  of  a  court  martial  of  his  oivn  subor 
dinate  officers,  hung  a  man  by  the  name  of  Ratford,  who 
had  been  taken  by  the  name  of  Wilson,  and  that,  notwith 
standing  the  pretended, proof  and  confession  of  the  man  him 
self,  that  his  name  was  Ratford,  it  is  said  that  Ratford  is 
now  living  in  Pennsylvania  :  Therefore,  says  this  Honourable 
Man>  the  British  government,  which  disavowed  the  conduct 
of  Berkeley,  was  insincere.  We  forbear  to  notice  the  hei~ 


[     89    3 

»ous  charge  against  an  admiral  for  appointing  a  court  mar- 
tial  of  officers  under  his  command  ;  because,  in  justice  to  the 
Honourable  Senator,  we  must  acknowledge  it  is  a  practice 
which  never  existed  until  af*er  the  existence  of  armies  and 
fleets,  and  therefore,  according  to  his  logick  respecting  the 
rule  of  '56,  "'there  is  no  right  of  prescription,"  and  it  cannot 
apply  to  us.  'As  little  shall  we  notice  the  charge  of  perjury 
and  murder  made  against  the  court  martial,  if  not  in  direct 
terms,  by  the  strongest  implication.  It  was,  we  presume,  in 
serted  as  an  irrefragable  proof  of  the  gentleman's  unsuspect 
ing  candour,  and  of  that  open-heartiness  which  imputes  no 
base  motive.  Hi&  16th  allegation  is,  that, 

"  After  the  character  which  the  disavowal  of  Admiral 
w  Berkeley's  own  government  has  given  to  his  conduct,  no 
"  confidence  can  be  claimed  by  or  due  to  the  proceedings  of 
"  a  court  martial  of  his  associates  held  to  sanction  his  pro- 
"  ceedings." 

And,  therefore,  says  this  Honourable  Man,  that  govern 
ment  which  made  the  disavowal  was  insincere.  Such  rea 
soning  as  this  might  become  a  pettifogger  in  a  county  court. 
There  the  stupid  might  wonder,  and  the  base  applaud.  But 
/rom  an  American  Senator  !  Oh,  poor  America,  how  art  thou 
fallen  J — To  prove  the  insincerity  of  a  master  in  disavowing 
the  act  of  his  servant,  and  promising  reparation,  another  act 
of  that  servant  is  quoted :  But  this  last  act  being  on  the  face 
of  it  regular  and  legal,  to  impeach  its  validity,  for  the  purpose 
of  attaching  the  charge  of  insincerity  to  the  master  himself, 
his  very  disavowal  of  the  first  act  is  quoted  as  proof  that 
the  servant  is  not  to  be  relied  on. 

Let  it,  for  argument  sake,  be  admitted  that  the  disavowal 
of  the  British  government  attached  such  infamy  to  the  cha 
racter  of  Admiral  Berkeley,  that  every  subsequent  part  of  his 
conduct  must  of  necessity  have  been  infamous,  will  it  follow 
that  the  disavowal  was  insincere — a  mere  show — a  pretext — 
a  thing  of  no.  substance  and  of  no  effect  ?  If  so,  what  be 
comes  of  the  objection  that  the  appointment  and  proceeding? 
of  the  court  martial  were  vitiated  by  the  disavowal ;  a  disa 
vowal  amounting  to  nothing  ?  But  if  the  disavowal  had  the 
effects  deduced  from  it,  how  can  it  be  such  a  sham — such  a 
protext — such  a  nullity  ?  The  argument  is  equally  wonder 
ful  in  every  psrt.  It  stands  thus  ;  If  England  was  sincere  in 
her  disavowal  of  Berkeley,  po  confidence  can  be  due  to  the 
decisions  of  a  court  afterwards  appointed  by  him :  if  no  such 
confidence  be  due,  the  man  called  Ratford  was  unjustly  con 
demned  and  executed ;  and  if  the  man  called  Ratford  was 


t     40     ] 

unjustly  condemned  and  executed,  England  was  not  sincere 
in  her  disavowal  :  Therefore,  if  England  was  sincere,  shef 
was  insincere.  Not  a  single  member  of  this  argument  but 
tohat  is  as  fallacious  as  the  conclusion  is  contradictory.  To 
disavow  the  conduct  of  a  military  man,  on  some  special  occa 
sion  or  specifick  act,neither  proves  nor  implies  that  he  is  void 
of  honesty,  honour  or  truth  ;  as  little  ground  is  there  to  insinu 
ate  that  officers  commanded  by  a  bad  man  must  of  necessity 
be  villains;  the  willing  instruments  to  commit,  at  his  bidding, 
crimes  the  most  infamous  and  abominable,  It  is  not  proved, 
and  it  cannot  be  presumed,  that  officers,  whose  well-earned 
fame  is  the  theme  of  general  and  just  applause  ;  officers, 
whose  manly  spirit  is  acknowledged  by  their  foes ;  that  such 
officers  would  commit  in  cold  blood  a  judicial  murder ;  that 
they  would  stain  their  honour  in  this  world,  and  hazard  their 
salvation  in  the  next,  merely  to  furnish  an  excuse  for  the 
misconduct  of  their  superiour.  In  a  word,  it  does  not  follow, 
tven  though  the  sentence  of  that  court  martial  should  be  un 
just,  and  the  confession  of  his  own  guilt  by  the  man  executed 
should  be  false,  that  the  British  government  was  insincere* 
Nay,  it  does  not  appear  on  any  other  ground  than  suspicion, 
a  ground  the  gentleman  so  repeatedly  disclaims,  that  the  BrU 
tish  Government  knew  any  thing  about  the  court  martial. 

His  seventeenth  allegation  is,  that  three  other  men,  taken 
from  the  Chesapeake,  though  there  was  not  the  shadow 
of  a  pretence  that  they  were  British  subjects,  were  sen 
tenced  to  suffer  death.  And  therefore,  says  this  Honourable 
inan,  the  British  Cabinet  was  insincere.  Unfortunately  for 
his  honour,  this  allegation,  which  would  not,  if  true,  support 
the  inference  drawn  from  it,  happens  to  be  false.  He  com 
plains  of  a  clamour  for  war  with  America,  which  he  finds  in 
English  newspapers,  and  he  complains  of  a  speech  (which  he 
thinks  injurious  to  America)  said  to  have  been  made  in  the 
house  of  lords ;  for  which  he  has  no  better  authority  than  an 
English  newspaper.  What  then  will  he  answer  when  it  shall 
be  retorted,  not  en  the  evidence  of  a  newspaper,  but  under 
the  sanction  of  his  own  signature,  that  a  member  of  the  A- 
merican  Senate,  enjoying  the  confidence  and  writing  under 
the  eye  of. the  American  administration,  has,  with  a  view  to 
exasperate  his  fellow  citizens  and  drive  them  into  a  ruinous 
war  with  England,  asserted  publickly  a  falsehood  ? 

Again,  this  honourable  man,  in  this  very  letter,  containing 
this  direct  unqualified  assertion  of  a  fact  which  never  happen 
ed,  undertakes  to  declare  that  the  French  Emperor  has  not 
done  certain  things.  But  how  can  he  expect  credit  for  his 


t    41    1 

negative  assurances;  when  so  careless  of  his  «redit  as  to  poSte 
tive  facts?  His  i8th  and  19th  allegations  are,  that  Berkeley 
was  complimented  by  the  address  of  two  colonial  assemblies, 
and  told  one  of  them  (so  late  as  December)  that  he  had  no 
official  notice  of  his  recall :  Therefore,  says  this  honourable 
man,  the  British  Cabinet  was  insincere.  And  so,  if  by  a 
speedy  recall  they  had  put  it  out  of  their  power  to  make  that 
step  a  part  of  the  satisfaction  to  our  government,  it  might 
equally  have  been  concluded,  that  they  were  insinceie ;  and 
•with  equal  propriety.  He  cannot,  it  seems,  for  the  very  soul 
of  him,  help  believing  that  every  thing  is  done,  in  every  part 
of  the  world,  exactly  after  the  fashion  of  our  federal  city* 
There  he  sees  legislative  bodies  who  go  neither  forward  nor 
backward,  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left,  until  they 
receive  the  President's  orders.  With  that  mode  of  procedure 
he  is  practically  conversant,  and  therefore  supposes  that  colo 
nial  assemblies,  in  Halifax  and  Bermuda,  wait  for  royal  orders 
before  they  express  an  opinion.  He  is  mistaken.  The  repre 
sentatives  of  British  subjects  are  too  proud  to  imitate  our  ex 
ample.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  thinking  and  acting  for 
themselves.  Poor  creatures  !  they  have  not  yet  learnt,  in  the 
new  school  of  liberty,  to  surrender  into  another  man's  custo 
dy  their  understanding,  their  confidence,  and  their  will.  But 
if  they  had,  can  it  be  imagined  that  British  ministers  (engaged 
in  the  deep  game  of  duplicity)  would  be  so  silly  as  to  shew 
their  cards  to  a  host  of  colonial  representatives  ?  Yet  all  this 
accumulation  of  supposition  on  supposition,  and  suspicion  on 
suspicion,  is  laboriously  heaped  up  by  the  candid,  open-heart 
ed,  sincere  Mr.  John  Q,.  Adams,  to  prove  the  British  ministers 
were  insincere  when  they  made  a  prompt,  spontaneous  offer 
of  reparation  for  the  misconduct  of  Admiral  Berkeley. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  few  allegations  of  the  Honourable 
Senator's  which  have  a  bearing  on  the  subject.  They  amount 
to  this;  that  reparation  was  not  made  in  England  ;  that  though 
offered  generally,  no  specifick  terms  were  proposed ;  that  the 
special  minister  sent  out  was  not  informed  of  certain  orders 
relating  to  another  subject ;  and  that  he  coupled  foreign  mat 
ter  with  the  question  of  reparation.  We  have  already  seen 
how  near  the  Honourable  Senator  has  kept  to  the  truth  so  far  as 
he  went ;  we  shall  now  see  whether  he  has  told  the  whole 
truth. 

The  attack  on  the  Chesapeake  was  made  on  the  3d  of  June. 
The  President's  Proclamation,  consequent  upon  it,  was  dated 
the  second  of  July.  Intelligence  of  the  insult  reached  London 
and  was  communicated- by  the  British  Secretary  of  State  to 


[     42     ] 

the  American  Minister  on  the  twenty-fifth ;  in  which  comniu* 
nication  Mr.  Canning  expresses  sefltiments  of  the  deepest  re- 
gret>  and  adds  the  assurance  that,  if  the  British  officers  shall 
prove  to  be  culpable,  the  most  prompt  and  effectual  repara 
tion  shall  be  afforded  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States.. 
On  the  29th  of  July,  Mr.  Monroe,  premising  that  he  had  no 
instruction  from  his  Government,  complains  of  the  outrage  in 
a  tone  of  anger  and  resentment.  He  mentions  some  aggra 
vating  circumstances,  and  says  he  might  state  other  examples 
of  indignity,  if  it  were  not  improper  to  mingla  them  with 
that  more  serious  cause  of  complaint.  He  concludes  by  de 
manding  an  immediate  and  frank  disavowal  of  the  principle 
on  which  the  attack  was  made,  together  with  the  assurance 
that  the  officer  shall  suffer  merited  punishment.  This  letter, 
though  rather  hasty  and  harsh,  considering  Mr.  Monroe's  di 
plomatic  character,  was  excusable  in  a  soldier.  It  was  con 
sistently  with  the  feelings  of  a  soldier  and  a  gentleman,  that 
he  declared  his  opinion  of  the  impropriety  of  blending  this  af 
fair  of  honour  with  any  other  consideration.  On  the  3d  of 
August,  five  days  after  the  data  of  Mr.  Monroe's  letter,  Mr. 
Canning  replied,  by  observing  that,  as  the  affair  was  confess 
edly  brought  forward  without  inftructions,  or  a  knowledge  of 
facts,  it  might  be  sufficient  to  repeat  the  general  assurances 
of  a  disposition  to  make  reparation :  that  as  this  had  been 
already  given,  he  had  reason  to  be  surprised  at  the  tone  of 
Mr.  Monroe's  representation ;  notwithstanding  which,  the 
king's  desire  to  shew  his  justice  and  moderation  would  not 
permit  him  to  hesitate  in  giving  the  assurance  that  he  neither 
did,  nor  had  at  any  time,  maintained  the  pretension  of  a 
right  to  search  ships  of  war  in  the  national  service  of  any 
state  for  deserters  ;  wherefore,  if  the  statement  made  by  Mr. 
Monroe  should  prove  to  be  accurate,  his  majesty  had  no  dif 
ficulty  in  disavowing  the  act,  and  would  have  no  difficulty 
in-  manifesting  his  displeasure  at  the  conduct  of  his  officers. 
Finally^  he  agreed  with  Mr.  Monroe  in  opinion,  as  to  the  im 
propriety  of  involving  other  matter  in  a  question  of  sufficient 
importance  to  claim  a  serious  consideration.  Thus  then,  in 
the  space  of  forty  days  from  the  time  when  the  attack  was 
made  on  our  coast,  it  was  disavowed  in  London :  The  princi 
ple  was  disclaimed,  and  reparation  promised.  All  that  re 
mained  was  to  establish  the  facts. 

Thus  stood  the  affair  when  the  President's  Proclamation 

arrived.      In   Mr.  Canning's  note   of  the  8th  of  August,  the 

Proclamation  is  mentioned  to  Mr.  Monroe  as  just  received  in 

a  newspaper,  which  he  sends  to  Mr,  Monroe,  and  asks  if  the 


{     43     } 

proclamation  be  authentic!*.  Mr.  Monroe  replies,  on  the  20th, 
that  he  is  yet  without  instructions,  but  that  he  shall,  he  ex 
pects,  when  he  receives  them,  be  able  to  furnish  a  full  and 
just  view  of  all  circumstances.  On  the  50th  of  August  Mr. 
Monroe  received  his  instructions,  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Madi 
son  of  the  6th  of  July,  inclosing,  among  other  things,  the  Pre 
sident's  Proclamation.  And  now  he  was  apprised  that  he  had 
taken  a  wrong  measure  of  those  whom  he  served.  They  did 
not  feel,  as  he  did,  that  honour  suffers  no  exteriour  circumstan 
ces  to  be  mingled  with  an  afront  :  that  matters  of  business 
or  advantage,  questions  of  profit  or  loss,  cannot  enter  into  the 
consideration  of  a  gentleman  where  his  honour  is  at  stake. 
He  was,  no  doubt,  surprised  to  discover  that  in  advancing  the 
sentiments  of  a  soldier  he  had  committed  himself  as  a  minis 
ter.  But  he  was  distinctly  instructed  that  "  an  entire  aboli- 
f<  tion  of  impressments  from  vessels  under  the  flag  of  the  U- 
"  nited  States  must  make  an  indispensable  part  of  the  satis- 
«  faction." 

Here  then  we  find  a  question  of  publick  law,  which  had 
been  agitated  eighteen  years,  tied  fast  to  the  question  of  sa 
tisfaction  for  a  recent  insult.  Mr.  Monroe  is  enjoined  not  to 
accept  of  any  reparation,  unless  Great-Britain  shall  surren 
der  what  she  considers  as  her  unquestionable  right. 

Seeing  that  with  some  it  may  be  matter  of  astonishment 
that  the  extreme  impropriety  of  this  conduct  did  not  suggest 
itself  to  the  members  of  our  administration,  it  may  be  well  to 
give  a  little  insight  into  their  notions,  their  temper,  their  ge 
nius,  and  their  conduct. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  they  set  a  high  value  on  the  thra- 
sonick  art,  commonly  called  bullying;  for  they  conclude,  with 
characteristick  sagacity,  that  since,  when  France  threatens 
they  obey  ;  when  they  . threaten,  England  will  obey.  Thus 
the  scheme  of  their  policy  consists  in  obeying  France  a,nd  bul 
lying  England.  So  much  for  their  notions.  Their  temper  isi 
to  befortiter  in  modo,  et  suaviter  in  re  ;  to  speak  big  words, 
and  do  little  things.  By  big  words  they  please  the  hawlers, 
a  numerous  race ;  and  by  little  things  they  tickle  little  minds ; 
gaining  credit  with  those  who  very  justly  consider  littleness  a& 
a  proof  of  cunning,  and  very  unjustly  imagine  cunning  to  be 
a  mark  of  wisdom.  Their  genius  is  of  sufficient  force  to  de 
vise  a  daily  excuse  for  the  daily  blunder ;  but  as  it  cannot 
comprehend,  so  it  does  not  consider,  the  national  interest. 
They  are,  in  regard  to  that,  what  may  be  called  microcos- 
mick  statesmen  :  people  who  scrutinize  a  part,  without  seeing 
the  whole.  They  have  an  excellent  kaack  of  discovering 


[    44    ] 

•what  suits  the  interests  of  their  party ;  what  offices  musf  be 
given ;  what  appearances  must  be  assumed ;  and  what  opi 
nions  jnust  be  insinuated  :  considering  their  country  as  it  is 
of  value  to  their  party,  and  their  party,  as  it  is  of  value  to 
themselves.  Their  conduct  is  bottomed  on  the  necessity  of 
popularity  to  the  execution  of  their  projects.  The  question 
with  them  is,  not  whether  a  measure  will  serve  or  injure  ;  but 
whether  it  will  offend  or  please  the  people.  In  short,  they 
seem  to  have  adopted  as  a  normal  maxim,  nullum  numen  abest 
si  sit  popularitas.  With  popular  support  every  thing  is  prac 
ticable,  Thus,  in  the  fond  conceit  that  England  might  be 
bullied  into  submission,  the  great  point  of  their  policy  was  to 
screw  up  America  to  a  proper  pitch  of  wrath.  The  affair  of 
the  Chesapeake  seemed  a  lucky  incident  for  the  purpose,  and 
was  seized  on  greedily.  The  people,  fully  informed  of  one 
half  the  facts,  and  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  other,  was  enra 
ged  almost  to  phrenzy ;  wherefore  they  supposed  the  mo 
ment  was  arrived  for  frightening  England,  by  the  threat  of 
invading  Canada,  and  of  joining  a  world  in  arms,  to  crush 
th*  world's  last  hope.  This  was  the  propitious  moment; 
"while  she  was  fighting  to  defend  her  existence  and  our  own  ; 
this  was  the  moment  to  seize  her  by  the  throat,  and  compel 
her  to  surrender  one  of  her  dearest  rights.  How  generous  ! 
how  magnarfimous  !  how  wise !  Presuming  that,  in  her  cri 
tical  condition,  she  could  easily  be  bullied  into  submission, 
they  anticipated  the  glory  of  that  bloodless  triumph,  and  the 
congratulation  of  their  friends  on  the  success  of  their  vigour-^ 
ous  measures. 

But  in  devising  this  notable  scheme,  they  never  reflected 
on  the  chance  of  meeting  with  men  who  prefer  honour  to 
life.  They  might  have  read  or  heard  of  such  men,  but  pro 
bably  they  felt  no  disposition  to  believe  in  their  existence.  Mr. 
Monroe,  proud  in  the  spirit  of  his  country,  called,  as  a  soldier, 
for  reparation  to  her  honour  !  He  insisted  that  other  questions 
should  rest  till  this  point  was  settled  ;  and  the  British  govern 
ment,  though  offended  at  the  manner,  did  justice  to  the  mo 
tive,  and  j  tined  in  the  issue.  But  now  Mr.  Monroe  finds  him 
self  obliged  to  ask  and  insist  on  a  different  matter,  which  the 
British  ministers  peremptorily  refuse.  Mr.  Monroe's  letter, 
and  Mr.  Canning's  answer,  both  well  written,  are  before  the 
publick.  We  will  not,  therefore,  repeat  their  contents.  We 
believe  the  most  prejudiced  reader  will  admit  the  reason  of 
the  case  to  be  on  Mr.  Canning's  side,  and  will  see,  that  if  re- 
pa  r.ition  was  not  made  in  London,  the  cause  of  delay  arose  .at 
"Washington, 


f     45     j 

In  the  course  of  the  negotiation,  Mr.  Monroe  declared 
what  were  the  specifick  things  expected  by  us  as  redress  and 
reparation.  The  most  important,  the  disavoival  of  the  right> 
had  been  already  made.  As  to  any  thing  further,  Mr.  Can 
ning  observed,  that  the  President's  Proclamation,  inhibiting 
our  ports  to  his  majesty's  ships  on  account  of  an  insult  from 
an  individual,  which  the  President  himself  considered  and 
stated  as  unauthorized,  was  an  act  of  hostility  done  in  the 
very  moment  when  reparation  was  asked  as  a  duty  of  friend 
ship.  Mr.  Canning  further  observed,  that  although  the  cir 
cumstances  which  preceded  the  attack  could  not  justify  Ad 
miral  Berkeley  in  assuming  to  himself  the  right  of  war  and 
peace,  on  a  question  between  him  and  his  sovereign,  yet  those 
circumstances  must  be  allowed  their  due  influence  on  the 
measure  of  reparation,  as  between  the  two  nations.  And  it 
must  be  owned,  that  our  President  virtually  acknowledged 
the  truth  of  this  observation,  when  he  so  strongly  insisted,  in 
the  outset,  that  the  men  taken  were  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

One  thing  asked  by  Mr.  Monroe,  as  an  act  of  reparation, 
was,  that  a  special  minister  should  be  sent  out  to  apologize. 
And  as  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  that  he  was  tied  up  by  his 
instructions,  not  to  treat  on  the  subject  of  the  Chesapeake 
singly  and  distinctly,  Mr.  Canning  announced  the  intention  of 
thus  sending  out  a  special  minister  for  that  express  and  single 
purpose.  Here  then  the  second  point  was  conceded  :  so  that 
only  two  questions  remained ;  Shall  the  men  taken  be  restor 
ed,  and  what  punishment  shall  be  inflicted  on  the  Admiral  ? 

As  to  the  last,  it  is  evident  that  the  British  government  can 
do  no  more  than  recall  or  dismiss  him,  unless  by  the  inter 
vention  of  a  court  martial ;  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  presum 
ed  that  this  question  may  be  easily  settled.  We  will  not 
anticipate  the  other. — What  has  been  said  is  sufficient  to 
shew  the  futility  of  the  Honourable  Senator's  suspicion,  in  so 
far  as  it  rested  on  a  supposed  defect  on  the  side  of  England, 
in  not  proposing  specifick  terms.  It  was  ours  to  propose  the 
terms — we  did  propose  them,  and  she  acceded  to  the  greater 
and  more  important  part.  But  here  it  seems  proper  to  state 
the  conduct  which  sound  policy,  not  to  mention  a  sense  of  pro 
priety,  would  have  dictated  to  our  administration.  Unques 
tionably,  they  ought  to  have  recalled  their  proclamation,  as 
soon  as  they  knew  the  King's  disavowal  of  the  vio 
lence,  and  of  the  right.  They  ought  to  have  assigned  that 
disavowal  as  their  reason  for  the  recall.  They  would  there 
by  have  gained  the  credit  of  establishing  the  rigut,  ana  the 


t     48     ] 

greater  credit  due  to  a  just  and  impartial  conduct.  The  act 
being  disavowed,  reparation  for  the  wrong  was  a  natural  and 
necessary  consequence.  Whatever  irregularities  foreign  offi 
cers  may  have  committed,  or  may  hereafter  commit,  the  al 
ternative  must  ever  be,  to  seek  redress  by  negotiation  or  by, 
arms.  After  the  resort  to  arms,  we  must  negotiate,  not  for 
reparation,  but  for  peace.  A  nation  which  respects  itself  «an- 
not  accede,  under  the  application  of  threat  or  force,  to  terms 
which  it  would  grant  on  the  friendly  demand  of  justice.  The 
Proclamation  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  a  hostile  act  ;  for  the 
•withholding  from  a  belligerent  a  favour  granted  to  his  adver 
sary,  is  taking  side  with  one  against  the  other :  the  party 
from  whom  the  favour  is  withheld  has  a  right  to  resent  the 
partiality.  The  measure  of  his  resentment,  indeed,  will  de 
pend  on  circumstancr.s  ;  but  having  acquired  the  rights  of 
•war,  he  may  well  decline  the  duties  of  peace. 

Admitting  for  a  moment,  with  the  Honourable  Senator, 
that  England  was  insincere  in  the  offer  of  reparation  ;  was  it 
\vise  to  give  her  a  -just  cause  for  refusal  ?  Was  it  wise  to  leave 
a  plausible  pretext  ? 

On  the  16th  of  October,  the  king  of  England,  by  proclama 
tion,  in  the  common  form  of  those  used  for  calling  home  his 
seafaring  subjects,  made  a  forma)  abandonment  of  the  claim 
to  search  foreign  ship*  of  war  for  British  Seamen  ;  and  as 
formal  an  assertion  of  nis  right  to  take  them  from  merchant 
ships.  Thus  the  bullying  scheme  ended,  as  such  schemes  gen 
erally  do,  in  shame.  Our  administration,  after  taking  their 
ground,  that  the  right  to  impress  seamen  from  merchant  ships 
should  be  abandoned  (as  pa~t  of  the  reparation  from  Great 
Britain  for  the  misconduct  of  Admiral  Berkeley)  no  sooner  saw 
their  opponents  take  the  adverse  ground,  than  they  made  a 
prompt  retreat,  and  agreed  to  negotiate  on  the  single  subject 
of  the  insult. 

As  Mr.  Rose  sailed  before  the  llth  of  November,  there  is 
no  wonder  that  he  came  out  ignorant  of  Orders  issued  on 
that  day.  But  even  had  they  been  of  anteriour  date,  it  was 
not  likely  that  they  should  be  referred  to  in  his  instructions  ; 
because  he  was  sent  out  to  treat  on-  a  distinct  subject,  and 
because  the  English  Minister,  resident  at  Washington,  was  the 
proper  channel  through  which  to  communicate  the  Orders  ; 
an  i  through  which  they  were  in  fact  communicated.  So 
much  for  that  ground  of  suspicion. 

There  remains  one  more  ground,  viz.  that  Mr.  Rose  would 
do  nothing  in  the  way  of  reparation,  till  the  Proclamation 
was  withdrawn.  That  the  British  Government  had  a  per,* 


feet  right  to  insist  on  the  retraction  of  that  Proclamation,  \ve 
have  no  doubt :  we  have  already  assigned  the  principles  of 
this  right.  But,  on  the  whole,  we  incline  to  think  that  the 
British  Ministers  gave  more  importance  to  the  Proclamation 
than  it  deserved.  Had  they  sought  cause  of  quarrel,  they 
could  have  found  enough  and  to  spare,  without  that  instru 
ment.  We  think,  therefore,  they  would  better  have  consult 
ed  the  king's  dignity,  by  taking  no  notice  of  our  hostile  acts, 
and  going  on  simply  to  make  a  suitable  reparation  for  the 
wrong  done  by  their  officer  :  indeed,  to  have  exceeded  rather 
than  fallen  short  of  the  measure.  This  conduct,  towards  a 
nation  so  defenceless  as  we  are,  would  have  exhibited  a  calm 
sense  of  dignity  and  justice,  highly  reputable  to  a  great  pow 
er.  But,  the  reparation  once  made,  England  had  a  right  tain- 
sist  on  reparation  for  the  wrongs  she  had  received.  We 
venture  to  say  that  whenever  this  shall  be  done  in  the  man 
ner  which  the  occasion  requires,  there  will  be  an  end  to  the* 
quibbling  and  subtiity  of  Gallick  attachment.  The  two  na 
tions  will  come  to  a  fair  and  honest  understanding,  and  the 
sense  of  common  interest  will  be  a  bond  of  union  between 
them  to  defend  what  is  yet  left  of  liberty  in  the  world. 

And  now  we  come,  at  last,  to  that  great  cause  of  hostility 
against  England,  which  the  Honourable  Senator  considers  of 
such  vast  magnitude  as  to  merge,  swallow  up  and  annihilate 
every  other  :  the  orders  of  the  British  Council  of  Novem 
ber  last.  These  justify,  it  seems,  the  Embargo  and  every 
thing  else ;  even  war.  Under  those  orders,  he  says,  millions 
of  American  property  are  detained  in  British  hands,  or  confis 
cated.  This,  Mr.  Senator,  is  a  mistake  in  point  of  fact :  a 
mistake  to  which  it  seems  you  are  somewhat  liable.  There 
has  been  no  confiscation. 

The  Honourable  Senator  acknowleges  that  these  orders 
were  not  communicated  with  the  President's  message  recom 
mending  an  Embargo.  But  what  of  that  ?  They  had  been 
announced  in  paragraphs  from  English  newspapers,  which  ap 
peared  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  the  very  day  the  Em 
bargo  message  was  sent.  Truly  an  excellent  ground  in 
legislative  proceeding.  The  President  recommends  a  mea* 
sure  of  no  trifling  import;  a  measure  which  destroys  half  the 
annual  revenue  of  the  country,  and  to  support  it  he  transmits 
ceitaindocuments  which  the  Honourable  Senator  acknowledges 
to  be  insufficient.  He  tells  us  expressly  that  the  great,  the 
important  information  was  derived  from  the  National  Intelli 
gencer — from  a  newspaper  !  The  Honourable  Senator  then 
had  no  better  ground  for  hurrying  through  the  Senate,  in 
hours,  a  bill  big  with  the  most  alarming  consequences. 


r  48  ] 

ne  had  no  other  ground  for  an  act  of  the  most  questionable 
policy,  than  a  ministerial  newspaper.  Nay,  he  takes  care  to 
tell  his  constituents,  lest  perchance  they  might  doubt  the  ex 
tent  of  his  credulity,  that  the  information  he  derived  from 
this  newspaper  was  not  only  without  official  authority;  but 
that  it  was  in  contradiction  to  what  had  before  been  re 
ceived.  "  Assurances  (he  says)  had  been  given  that  there 
was  reason  to  believe  no  such  orders  were  contemplated."-— 
"  Suspicion  was  lulled  by  declarations  equivalent  nearly  to  a 
positive-  denial."  And  yet,  under  these  circumstances,  the 
Sage  and  Honourable  Senator  not  only  considered  Smith  (the 
President's  printer)  a  sufficient  authority  for  his  own  vote,  but 
was  surprised  that  his  colleague  should  not  be  of  the  same 
opinion.  What  a  fine  pass  is  our  country  come  to !  Our  se 
nators  legislate  not  only  on  the  dictation  of  the  President,  but 
even  on  that  of  his  printer.  Let  us  hear  hini  further  : 

"  But  although  so  feebly  authenticated,  and  in  some  sort  de- 
"  nied,  yet  the  probability  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
€s  they  were  announced,  and  the  sweeping  tendency  of  their 
"  effects,  formed  to  my  understanding  a  powerful  motive,  and 
w  (together  with  the  papers  sent  by  the  President,  and  his  ex- 
"  press  recommendation)  a  decisive  one  for  assenting  to  the 
«  Embargo." 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  when  any  measure  of  a  foreign 
nation  which  may  affect  our  interest  shall  be  announced  in 
the  National  Intelligencer,  under  probable  circumstances,  the- 
Senate  of  the  United  States  ought  to  act  with  a  promptitude, 
which,  overleaping  all  rules,  shall  not  permit  one  half-day's 
deliberation.  He  who  hesitates  must  be  condemned:  he 
must  be  condemned  too,  if  he  does  not  acknowledge  this 
newspaper  authority  to  be  authentick — nay,  he  may  be  charg 
ed  with  duplicity  ;  with  a  design  to  deceive  his  constituents  ; 
betray  their  rights,  and  subject  them  to  the  sway  of  a  foreign 
power,  if  he  should  omit  to  announce  facts  resting  on  such  au 
thority,  among  the  reasons  which  operated,  not  on  his  own 
mind,  but  on  the  minds  of  those,  who  refusing  to  assign  their 
motives,  confine  themselves  to  a  plump  voting  in  a  course 
of  dumb  legislation. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  supposed  that  if  Congress  had  wait 
ed  for  official  information,  some  great  evil  would  have  hap 
pened.  Directly  the  reverse  :  it  would  have  appeared  that 
these  tremendous  orders,  with  all  their  sweeping  tendency  i 
were  not  to  affect  ships  which  should  sail  previous  to  a  certain 
day.  This  British  Council,  with  all  the  imputed  tyranny,  was 
too  honest  to  imitate  the  example,  in  retaliating  the  violence 


C     49     ] 

of  France.  England  did  not  issue  those  bursting  ordert, 
which,  tumbling  about  the  Professor's  ears,  disturbed  the  Se- 
nator'y  judgment.  She  gave  full  time  for  information  to  all 
who  might  be  affected.  And  we  think  ourselves  correct  in 
stating,  that  few  (if  any)  vessels  were  prevented  from  sailing 
by  the  Embargo,  whose  owners  would  not  have  been  appris 
ed  of  the  ordrrs,  or  excepted  from  their  effects.  Let  us  add 
in  this  place  another  little  circumstance,  for  the  Honourable 
Senator's  candid  consideration. 

<f  These  orders  (says  he)  together  with  the  subsequent  re- 
€<  taliating  decrees  of  France  and  Spain,  have  furnished  the 
t(  only  reasons  upon  which  I  have  acquiesced  it  its  (the  Em- 
"  bargo's)  continuance  to  this  day."  "  So  far  was  it  from  be- 
"  ing  dictated  by  France,  that  it  was  calculated  to  withdraw^ 
tc  and  has  ivithdraivn  from  within  her  reach,  all  the  means 
"  of  compulsion  which  her  subsequent  decrees  would  have 
**  put  in  her  possession." 

To  our  poor  comprehension  it  stands  demonstrated,  that 
these,  BRITISH  ORDERS  had  this  same  tendency  to  withhold 
from  the  grasp  of  France  those  means  of  compulsion.  We 
do  not  say  to  withdraiv,  because  we  are  not  yet,  like  the 
learned  Professor,  so  angry  with  England  as  to  write  bad 
English  ;  and  do  not  see  how  a  thing  is  to  be  drawn  out 
which  is  not  already  in.  We  take  the  liberty  to  repeat,  that 
the  British  orders  have  prevented  our  property  from  going  to 
France,  whereas,  we  now  know,  the  emperor  would  have 
sequestered  it,  to  remain  a  pledge  in  his  hands,  for  our  obedi 
ence  to  his  will ;  and  in  case  we  should  not  (according  to  his 
orders)  declare  war  against  his  enemy,  to  be  confiscated  to 
his  use.  So  that,  without  locking  up  the  doors  of  our  grana 
ries,  till  our  harvests  should  rot,  bj  way  of  punishing  mer 
chants  for  operations  which  bring  comfort  to  our  citizens,  and 
cash  to  the  publick  coffers, had  things  been  left  to  their  natural 
course,  these  detestable  British  orders  would  have  protected 
our  goods,  not  only  from  the  spoil  of  French  piracy,  under 
the  decree  of  Berlin  (then  in  a  train  of  execution  to  the  ex* 
tent  of  French  power)  but  also  from  the  gripe  of  French  po 
licy,  which,  violating  the  faith  of  treaties,  and  the  principled 
of  justice,  would  have  used  the  property  of  our  merchants  as 
a  lever  to  upheave  and  overthrow  our  peace  and  prosperity. 
All  this  would  have  appeared  as  it  now  appears,  had  the  Con 
gress  patiently  waited,  and  calmly  considered,  and  wisely 
weighed  information  then  in  regular  course  of  progress  to 
wards  them  ;  had  they  allowed  time,  a  little  time,  for  eonsi- 
tferatiog. 

H 


[    50    ] 

Before  we  quit  this  chapter,  we  cannot  feelp  remarking  oa 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  with  which  the  elect  of  our  land  seem 
so  plenteously  to  be  endowed.  No  threats  had  yet  arrived 
from  the  great  Napoleon.  None  had  been  made.  At  least, 
so  says  Mr.  Adams.  And  yet  the  Embargo  was  calculated 
to  defeat  the  object  of  his  subsequent  decrees. 

But,  says  the  honourable  and  prudent  Senator,  there  was 
no  danger  in  laying  the  Embargo  ;  it  might  be  removed  "  if 
the  alarm  was  groundless."  And  again  he  says,  "it  was  a 
measure  altogether  of  defence  and  of  experiment  ;  a  restric 
tion  always  under  our  own  controul."  And  he  really  seems 
surprised  that  his  colleague  could  not  agree  to  this  experi 
ment,  always  under  controul :  that  he  would  not  try  projects 
with  the  national  prosperity:  that' he  would  not  indulge  the 
president's  humour  by  shutting  up  the  avenues  of  national 
wealth:  that  he  should  be  such  a  niggard  of  confidence, 
when,  if  the  scheme  should  not  answer,  "  a  single  day  would 
Suffice  to  unbar  the  doors."  And  thus  this  sage  counsellor 
and  faithful  representative  not  only  thinks  it  proper  to  act 
himself,  but  is  astonished  that  his  colleague  should  decline  act 
ing  also,  according  to  the  president's  will,  on  the  authority  of 
a  newspaper ;  and  that  too  on  so  trifling  a  question  as  one 
which  had  for  its  object  only  the  navigation,  commerce  and 
agriculture  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  indeed  strange  that  such  a  rash  young  man  as  Picker 
ing  would  not  try  projects  with  these  trifling  concerns,  when 
it  was  so  easy,  if  the  project  failed,  to  unbar  the  doors.  But 
would  unbarring  the  doors  bring  back  the  seamen  and  artifi 
cers  who  had  gone  into  foreign  service  ?  Would  it  fit  out 
ships  which  had  mouldered  away  ?  Would  it  restore  capi 
tal  which  had  been  lost  ?  Would  it  replace  the  produce  of 
American  industry,  which  had  rotted  in  the  fisherman's  or  far 
mer's  hands? 

Again  :  Did  this  experimental  politician,  before  he  gave  his 
vote  to  tie  up  the  hands  of  labour  and  subject  honest  families 
to  ruin,  did  he  ascertain  the  practicability  of  getting  other 
such  politicians  to  vote  with  him,  when  he  should  grow  sick 
of  the  president's  project  ?  Might  not  his  colleague  (even  if 
disposed  to  indulge  his  fancy,  aud  let  him  amuse  himself  with 
such  toys  as  the  agriculture  and  commerce  of  an  empire) 
might  not  his  colleague  have  entertained  <some  little  doubt 
whether  other  folks  would  agree  to  give  over  the  game,  when 
it  began  to  grind  the  face  and  pinch  the  belly  of  his  constitu 
ents  ?  And  even  if  it  were  admitted  that  a  majority  of  each 
house,  had  they  continued  a  little  longer  in  session,  would 
have  agreed  to  take  off  the  Embargo,  is  it  certain  that  the 


(  si  ] 

president  would  abandon  his  project  ?  If  not,  how  does  & 
appear  that  |he  measure  was  so  completely  in  the  power  of 
the  Honourable  Senator  Adams  ?  Had  he,  indeed,  been  con 
tent  with  laying  an  Embargo  for  a  limited  time,  he  might, 
on  a  question  for  the  renewal,  have  exercised  his  judgment 
and  used  his  power.*  Two  thirds  of  each  House  would  not, 
then,  have  been  require^  to  unbar  the  doors.  In  that  case, 
if  a  temporary  Embargo  had  been  laid,  and  the  necessity  or 
propriety  of  continuing  it  should  have  become  evident,  a  bare 
majority  would  have  been  competent  to  prolong  the  terrru 
Now  the  law  having  laid  a  permanent  Embargo,  if  it  be  con 
stitutional  (which  we  deny)  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  President, 
with  a  minority  in  either  house  of  Congress  (provided  it  ex 
ceed  one  third)  to  keep  these  doors  shut,  barred  and  bolted 
for  the  threatened  term  of  three  years,  and  as  much  longer 
as  he  and  his  minority  please.  Is  it  possible  that  a  considera 
tion  of  this  sort,  which  absolutely  intrudes  itself  on  the  notice 
of  a  cursory  observer,  could  have  escaped  the  penetration  of 
the  Honourable  Mr.  John  Q,.  Adams  ?  Surely  it  could  not. 
And  here  our  readers  are  requested  to  take  notice,  that  if  the 
French  emperor  had  given  orders  to  prohibit  commerce  with 
England,  during  his  pleasure,  a  temporary  Embargo  coulct 
not  have  been  considered  either  as  a  formal  or  substantial 
obedience.  Not  so  a  perpetual  Embargo.  This,  having  all 
the  merit  of  submission  to  the  imperial  mandate,  may  serve 
as  a  proper  ground  on  which  to  supplicate  imperial  mercy. 
Amended  and  fortified  as  it  at  length  is,  with  land  Embar 
go  Supplements,  it  cuts  off  all  commercial  intercourse  with 
the  British  dominions. 

And  now,  since  this  measure  is  confessedly  aimed  at  Eng 
land  let  us  examine  its  effects.  And  here  we  have  fresh 
cause  to  admire  the  wisdom  of  our  councils.  Lost,  as  we 
all  were,  in  wonder,  at  that  sublime  policy  which  would  aid 
the  candidate  for  universal  empire  by  weakening  the  opposi 
tion  and  removing  (as  far  as  lies  in  our  power)  every  obstacle 
to  the  accomplishment  of  his  wish ;  astonished  at  the  profound 
sagacity  of  those  honest  patriots,  who,  to  support  the  honour 
and  independence  of  our  country,  not  only  pay  to  France  the 
tribute  of  their  applause,  and  (in  the  just  measure  and  truo 
spirit  of  republican  ceconomy)  the  tribute  still  more  precious^ 
of  their  coin,  but  even  exert  themselves  to  break  the  only 
mound  that  now  restrains  a  torrent  which  has  laid  waste  the 
fields  and  laid  low  the  kingdoms  and  the  states  of  Europe  g 
a  torrent,  by  which,  but  for  that  mound,  we  should  be  over 
whelmed  ;  our  laws,  our  liberti**,  our  property,  our  religion, 
our  wealth,  and  our  Y**y  name,  swept  away  and  swallowed 


[    82    ] 

up  in  the  ocean  of  oblivion.  Amazed  at  such  a  profundity  of 
views,  such  a  height  and  depth  of  awful  combination,  in  the 
mind  of  that  political  pope,  whose  infallibility  is  the  first  if  not 
the  only  article  of  faith  with  those  friends  of  the  Honourable 
Senator  who  were  his  father's  foes;  it  seemed  impossible  to 
wind  up  our  mental  powers  to  a  greater  sublimity  of  reveren 
tial  awe.  But  how  feeble  is  the  conception  of  that  frail  crea 
ture  man  !  At  sight  of  the  Embargo,  at  the  appearance  of 
an  instrument  so  well  contrived  to  pull  down  the  pride  of 
Britain,  and  lay  her  councils  prostrate  at  our  feet,  we  were 
astounded.  Its  first  effect  is,  that  we,  her  only  commercial 
rival,  retiring  from  the  ocean,  leave  in  her  hands  the  com 
merce  of  the  world,  its  second  effect  is,  to  recruit  her  navy 
with  at  least  ten  thousand  seamen  which  were  in  our  ser 
vice.  Its  third  effect  is  (by  starvation)  to  bring  under  her 
sway  the  islands  which  yet  belong  to  her  enemy.  Its  fourth 
eflfect  is,  to  send  our  ship-carpenters,  rope-makers,  sail-makers, 
and  all  who  are  concerned  in  the  building  and  fitting  of  ships, 
to  her  trading  cities  in  our  neighbourhood.  Its  fifth  effect 
is,  to,  force  our  fishermen  to  exercise  their  art  under  her  flag, 
and  for  her  benefit.  Its  sixth  effect  is,  to  give  a  spring  to 
the  culture  of  her  colonies,  so  as  to  secure,  in  a  short  time, 
the  means  of  feeding  her  islands  with  articles  formerly  suppli 
ed  by  the  industry  of  our  farmers  ;  and  thereby  to  emanci 
pate  those  islands  from  their  dependence  on  us.  Finally,  its 
seventh  effect  is,  to  induce  many  of  our  citizens  to  abandon 
farms  which  they  bought  on  credit,  but  cannot  now  pay  for, 
and  settle  in  Canada  and  Nova-Scotia.  These  seven  conse 
quences  of  the  Embargo,  these  seven  vials  of  wrath  poured 
out  on  our  own  heads,  these  seven  deadly  sins  of  American 
policy,  cannot  but  endear  the  measure  to  England.  If,  there 
fore,  those  who  preside  over  her  councils  have  any  thing  in 
them  of  gratitude  or  generosity,  they  will  give  thanks  and 
rewards  to  the  father  and  frien  's  of  this  hopeful  project.  To 
the  kindness  and  bounty  of  Britain  we  recommend  them  ;  and 
should  she  in  her  goodness  take  them  to  herself,  we  shall  es 
teem  it  a  signal  favour.  God  knows  we  have  had  enough  of 
them  and  of  their  projects. 

We  have  promised  to  consider  the  measure  of  retaliation, 
in  the  Orders  of  the  British  Council  so  loudly  complained  of. 
The  Hon.  Senator  has  attempted  to  justify  the  Berlin  Decree 
of  the  twenty-first  of  November  1806,  as  a  retaliation  of  the 
rule  adopted  in  British  Admiralty  Courts  in  the  war  of  1756.* 

?  The  great  importance  of  tpis  subject  seems  to  demand  the  intrpdwr 


[     53     j 

This  may  be  called  visiting  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the 
heads  of  their  children.  The  principle  of  that  rule  we  shall 
not  examine  because  we  consider  it  as  being  at  variance  witfe 
established  maxims  ;  and  because  Great  Britain  has  not  main 
tained  it  in  her  general  practice.  She  has  resorted  to  it  occa 
sionally  to  justify  acts  inconsistent  with  rights  claimed  by 
neutral  nations  ;  but  (as  we  have  already  mentioned)  at  the 
time  of  ihe  Berlin  Decree,  the  only  exceptions  to  an  undefin 
ed  liberty  of  commerce  were,  1st,  the  case  of  contraband,  a- 
bout  which  there  is  no  dispute  :  2nd,  the  case  of  actual  block 
ade  by  a  force  sufficient  to  render  access  to  the  port  blocka 
ded  difficult  and  dangerous  ;  on  which  also  there  is  no  dis 
pute,  except  as  to  the  circumstances  of  notice,  amount  of 
force  and  the  like,  being  mere  questions  of  fact,  which  do  not 
affect  the  principle  :  and  3d,  the  case  of  a  direct  commerce 
between  the  colonies  of  a  belligerent  and  their  mother  coun 
try.  This  restriction  has  been  submitted  to  in  practice  gene 
rally,  and  in  principle  by  the  present  American  administration 
particularly.  Mr.  Madison  in  his  letter  to  Messrs.  Monroe 
and  Pinckney,  of  the  7th  May,  1806,  says  : 

/ 

tion  here  of  the  following  Extract  from 

Falln's  ORDONNANCES  of  Louis  XIV.— 1?04,  23d  July. 
Article  VI   page  248 — 252. 

Vessels  appertaining  to  the  subjects  of  neutral  comntrics,  which  have  de 
parted  from  the  ports  of  an  enemy  of  his  Majesty,  and  shall  have  there 
loaded  in  whole  or  in  part^  to  go  to  ports  of  any  other  Prince  than  their  own, 
whether  allies  of  his  Majesty,  neutral  or  enemies,  may  be  arrested  and 
brought  into  the  realm,  and  shall  be  declared  good  prize,  with  their  car 
goes,  even  though  they  are  loaded  for  account  of  subjects  of  his  Majesty,, 
neutrals,  or  allies. 

Article  J.V.  sartie  Ordonnance. 

It  is  forbidden  to  stop  vessels  belonging  to  neutrals  coming  from  the 
ports  of  an  ally,  or  neutrals  going  to  au  enemy's  port,  PRO  VIDEO  there  are 
not  in  said  vessels  any  contraband  articles,  or  ARTICLES  of  the  GROWTH 
or  fabjick  of  his  Majesty's  enemies,  in  WHICH  case,  the  merchandise 
shall  be  good  prize,  and  the  vessels  released. 
Article  VII. 

Thus  enemies1  goods  subject  the  ship  which  carries  them,  to  confisca 
tion,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  cargo,  whether  these  belong  to  friends,  allies  or 
neutrals  ;  because  it  is  to  favour  in  one  manner  or  another  the  commerce  of 
the  enemy ,  and  facilitates  the  transport  of  his  provisions  and  merchandise. 

It  goes  on  to  remark,  that  even  if  the  neutral  did  wo*  know  the  fact,  the 
property  is  nevertheless  good  prize,  his  own  as  well  as  the  enemy's . 

It  is  true,  says  Valin,  this  jurisprudence  (or  injustice)  is  peculiar  to  France 
and  Spain,  and  that  in  other  countries  they  only  seize  enemies'  goods,and  pay 
freight  to  the  neutral 

Article  XT. — page  264  et  suivantes. 

We  have  reflected  a  little  too  late,  perhaps,  in  France,  on  the  carrying  on 
our  trade  in  time  of  war  in  the  ships  of  neutrals,  as  if  we  were  in  profound 
peace,  and  it  is  only  in  this  war  that  we  have  thought  seriously  of  making 
regulations  under  which  neutrals  may  carry  on  commerce  with  our  enemies. 

The  first  object  is  to  consider  the  proof  of  neutrality.  For  of  what  avail 
would  be  neutrality,  if  neutrals  could  presume  to  use  ships  which  in  truth 
bclgrig  to  enemies? 


{     54    ] 

«*  The  abuses  which  have  been  committed  by  Great  Bri- 
a  tain,  under  the  pretext  that  a  neutral  trade  from  enemy's 
**  colonies  through  neutral  ports  was  a  direct  trade,  render  it 
**  indispensable  to  guard  against  such  a  pretext,  by  some  ex* 
"  press  declaration  on  that  point — The  most  that  can  be  con- 
"  ceded  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  is,  that  the  landing 
€<  the  goods,  the  securing  the  duties,  and  the  change  of  the 
"  ship,  or  preferably,  the  landing  of  the  goods  alone,  or  with 
"  the  securing  the  duties,  shall  be  requisite  to  destroy  the  iden-* 
"  tity  of  the  voyage,  and  the  directness  of  the  trade." 

Although  we  cannot  agree,  that  the  United  States  ought  to 
give  up  the  principle,  that  property  going  from  our  ports,  in 
our  own  ships,  shall  be  free  from  capture,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  antecedent  circumstances,  yet  in  candour  we  feel 
ourselves  bound  to  acknowledge  that  the  ground  on  which 
our  rulers  proceeded  is,  in  some  respects,  solid. 

The  law  of  nations  consists  in  general  of  the  principles  of 
reason  and  justice,  applied  to  the  subject  on  which  any  ques 
tion  may  arise.  But  there  is,  moreover,  a  conventional  law 
of  nations,  being  the  purport  of  certain  general  agreements 
among  particular  nations. — Thus  from  the  general  principle, 
that  the  victor,  having  over  the  conquered  an  unlimited  pow 
er  of  life  and  death,  might  if  he  pleased,  reduce  his  prisoners 
to  slavery,  Christians  have  made  a  great  exception.  The  pow- 

To  regulate  this  point,  several  things  have  been  settled.  By  the  follow 
ing  decree,  21st  Oct.  1744,  the  king  having  had  represented  to  him  the 
decree  of  23d  July,  1704,  concerning  prizes,  and  the  navigation  of  neutrals 
and  allies  pending  the  war,  his  majesty  would  have  admitted  the  same  te 
be  wise  and  suitable,  and  that  it  would  be  for  the^good  of  his  realm,  that 
they  should  all  be  renewed  in  the  present  war  ;  but,  as  they  do  not  agree 
with  some  treaties  which  his  majesty  has  made  with  certain  powers, 
•which  he  is  determined  to  regard  with  scrupulous  fidelity  : — Therefore 
decreed  : 

1.  Ships  going  from  a  neutral  port,  and  loaded  with  their  own  articles,  of 
their  growth,  may  go  even  to  enemies'  ports. 

2.  Ships  going  even  from  an  enemy's  port  loaded  with  any  produce  not 
belonging  to  enemies,  may  return  to  their  own  ports. 

3.  Any  vessel  bound  from  one  neutral  port  to  another  neutral  port  may 
go  freely,  if  she  is  not  laden  with  goods  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  the 
enemy,  in  Avhich  latter  case  the  goods  shall  be  good  prize,  and  the  vessel 
released. 

4.  So  if  a  neutral  ship  depart  from  a  port  of  his  Majesty  or  his  allies, 
and  is  laden  with  goods  the  growth  or  manufacture  o.f  his  enemies,  the 
goods  shaH  be  lawful  prize. 

Article  6  declares,  that,  to  remove  all  doubt,  all  neutral  vessels  going 
from  an  enemy's  port,  and  which  shall  there  have  loaded  in  whole  or  in  part, 
and  destined  to  any  other  country  than  the  one  to  which  such  neutral  be- 
loags,  whether  an  ally  of  his  majesty,  neutral  or  enemy,  may  be  seized, 
"brought  in  and  declared  good  prize,  with  their  cargoes,  though  loaded  on. 
the  account  of  allies  or  of  neutrals. 

The  foregoing  extracts  are  either  literal  translations,  or  passages  con 
densed  for  the  Sake  of  brevity,  preserving  strictly  the  idea  of  the  aufcher. 


t    55    ] 

er  is  restrained  to  the  period  of  resistance.  From  the  moment 
of  submission,  it  becomes  a  duty  to  spare,  and  finally  to  re 
store  to  their  country,  the  captives  made  in  war.  To  men 
tion  all  the  conventional  articles,  in  publick  law,  would  require 
a  volume  :  they  are  of  various  kinds,  some  of  which  extend 
the  rights  of  hostility  ;  or,  in  other  words,  abridge  the  rights 
of  neutrality  :  for  the  rights  of  war  between  the  belligerents 
themselves  (as  laid  down  by  the  most  respected  writers)  can^ 
not  be  extended  ;  seeing  that  they  go  to  the  complete  exter 
mination  of  the  conquered. — This  was  no  uncommon  practice 
among  the  nations  of  antiquity.  The  general  (and  we  may 
indeed  say  the  universal)  practice  of  nations  which  have  colo 
nies,  to  confine  the  commerce  of  those  colonies  to  the  parent 
state,  formed  by  itself,  and  in  its  effects,  a  part  of  that  conven 
tional  law.  A  flippant  sophist  may  pretend  that  the  United 
States  cannot  be  bound  by  this  convention,  to  which  they  ne 
ver  assented  ;  but  the  answer  of  Europe  is  simple  and  conclu 
sive  :  Those  who  claim  to  be  members  of  a  society,  and  en 
joy  the  benefit  of  its  laws,  must  submit  to  those  laws — to  all 
those  laws ;  since  otherwise  each  member  might  prescribe  his 
own  convenience  as  a  rule  to  every  other.  Besides,  we  have 
in  some  sort  assented  to  this  very  compact.  In  our  treaties 
with  the  nations  of  Europe,  we  agree  to  reciprocal  principles 
and  regulations  respecting  all  our  ports  and  their  European 
ports ;  excepting  from  the  general  principle ,  and  making  spe 
cial  provisien  for  their  colonies  :  nay,  agreeing  to  particular 
stipulations  for  the  privileges  allowed  to  us  in  the  colonial 
trade.  From  this  conventional  law  it  has  resulted,  that  bel 
ligerents  have  assumed  (and  perhaps  justly)  the  right  to  insist 
that  property  carried  to  and  fro  between  the  mother  country 
and  its  colonies  is  the  property  of  an  enemy,  To  the  offer  of 
evidence  when  claimed  as  neutral,  they  reply  that  such  evi 
dence  is  unworthy  of  notice  ;  because  it  must  consist  either 
ef  the  official  papers  issued  by  the  enemy,  which  in  the  state 
ef  war,  and  framed  so  as  to  cover  goods  from  hostile  pursuit, 
prove  nothing  ;  or  of  the  deposition  of  witnesses,  some  of 
which  may  easily  be  deceived  into  a  belief  of  what  is  not 
true,  and  the  others,  who  (from  the  necessity  of  the  case)  are 
admitted  to  a  knowledge  of  the  transaction,  are  interested  in 
concealing  the  truth,  and  have  engaged  in  or  been  employed 
to  carry  on  the  trade,  because  they  are  not  scrupulous  about 
oaths.  That  such  direct  trade  may,  if  permitted,  be  prosecu 
ted  on  account  of  the  enemy,  no  man  will  have  the  hardihood 
to  deny  :  and  perhaps  it  is  for  the  general  interests  of  man 
kind  that  a  traffick  which  involves  the  breach  of  oaths  should  b*? 


(   so   1 

inhibited.  Certain  it  is,  that  France,  in  the  sense  of  her 
inferiority,  and  in  the  consciousness  that  she  would  not  justify 
or  could  not  prevail  on  other  nations  to  assert  the  claim  that 
during  war  neutrals  should  be  allowed  to  carry  on  her  trade 
with  her  colonies,  took  a  different  course.  She  has  laboured 
unremittingly  to  establish  (by  general  agreement)  the  princi 
ple  that  free  ships  shall  make  free  goods.  A  convention  to 
which  the  nation  most  powerful  at  sea  will  never  consent  ; 
and  which,  if  made^S  would  be  broken  by  France  whenever  it 
should  suit  her  views.  Of  this  we  have  complete  evidence* 
Nay,  we  assert,  and  defy  contradiction,  that  (within  the  last 
twenty  years)  France  has  constantly  violated  every  principle 
of  publick  law,  and  every  treaty  which  stood  in  her  way.  If 
the  Honourable  Senator  entertains  a  different  opinion,  let  him 
cite  the  single  instance  wherein  she  has  respected,  either  her 
publick  faith  pledged  by  treaty,  or  the  principles  of  reason  and 
justice,  when  it  suited  her  interest  to  set  them  at  nought. 

We  say  then,  in  justification  of  our  rulers  (or  at  least  in 
palliation,  if  we  are  right  in  our  opinion  that  they  have  con 
ceded  an  important  right  of  sovereignty)  that  they  may  have 
agreed  with  Great  Britain  as  to  the  direct  trade  between  co 
lonies  and  the  mother  country  ;  and  may,  from  a  sense  of 
justice,  as  well  as  to  avoid  a  conflict  of  claims  where  there  is 
no  common  judge,  have  assented  to  the  principle  that  merely 
to  enter  a  port  of  the  United  States,  in  going  from  Martinique 
to  France,  does  not  break  the  continuity  of  the  voyage :  that, 
to  every  essential  or  important  purpose,  it  is  a  direct  voy 
age  from  Martinique  to  France,  as  much  as  a  voyage  to  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  or  Isle  of  France  and  thence  to  Canton 
is  a  direct  voyage  to  China.  It  is  evident  that,  unless  in  this 
single  instance,  we  had  agreed  to  no  infraction  of  our  rights 
by  Great  Britain  ;  and  that  it  was  in  this  instance  a  matter  of 
question  whether  she  had  gone  beyond  the  true  line.  But 
admitting  that  she  had,  the  wrong  done  was  little,  if  at  all,  h> 
jurious  to  France. 

We  pray  it  may  be  constantly  kept  in  mind,  that  the  right 
of  France  to  limit  our  commerce,  in  a  manner  not  justified 
by  publick  law,  could  arise  only  from  our  submission  to  en 
croachments  on  our  rights  by  her  enemy,  in  a  manner  injuri 
ous  to  her.  As  to  the  fanciful  doctrine  of  the  Honourable  Se 
nator,  that  the  rule  of  1756,  by  extending  the  theatre  of  hos 
tility,  violated  the  rights  of  war  as  between  the  belligerents,  it 
may  be  a  good  theme  for  boys  to  debate  about  by  way  of 
sharpening  their  wits,  but  it  is  unworthy  the  notice  of  men. 
^  is,  besides,  a  matter  which  neutrals  have  nothing  to  do  with, 


[    57    j 

unless  called  on  to  join  hi  a  crusade  against  Great  Britain  (utt« 
der  the  banners  of  that  pious  Christian  and  kind  creature  Na 
poleon)  to  restore  the  rights  of  humanity  to  their  "  temple  in 
the  heart  of  kings."  What  is  it  to  us  whether  the  rule  of 
1756  was  a  crime  greater  than  if  Charles  Fox  had  hired  an" 
assassin  to  stab  the  French  Emperor  ?  The  Honourable  Se 
nator  says  it  is.  Let  it  then,  in  complaisance  to  him,  be  so 
set  down.  Bjit  if  Fox,  or  his  successor  in  office,  had  hired  a 
hundred  assassins  to  cut  off  the  whole  Corsican  race,  would 
any  of  them  have  been  justified,  by  that  atrocity,  in  plunder 
ing  us  ?  How  in  the  name  of  sense  can  we  be  answerable 
for  the  vices  of  Charles  Fox,  or  assume  merit  for  his  virtues  ? 

There  are  men  who  will  say  that  neutrals  have  a  right  to 
insist  on  the  principle  of  free  ships  free  goods :  and  that  the 
relinquishment  of  our  rights  to  cover  French  goods  against 
the  pursuit  of  her  enemy,  will  justify  her  in  a  measure  of  re 
taliation.  To  this  it  may  be  proper  to  reply  : 

First,  that  the  pretended  right  has  no  existence,  and  that 
France  has  acknowledged  this  by  making  (with  us)  a  special  stip 
ulation  to  that  effect :  Secondly,  that  this  pretended  right  can 
exist  only  as  an  extension  of  the  protection  given  to  the  pro 
perty  of  an  enemy  in  a  neutral  country.  But  France  has 
made  it  the  invariable  practice  to  seize  goods  of  her  enemy, 
even  in  neutral  countries  ;  which  (whatever  may  be  her  ver 
bal  claims  or  pretences)  amounts  to  an  actual  abandon 
ment  of  the  alledged  principle,  as  to  ships,  while  it  is  a  vi 
olation  of  the  acknowledged  principle  as  to  territory  :  from 
which  alone  the  assumption  of  the  principle  as  to  ships  .can 
be  derived. — Thirdly,  France  has  violated,  with  respect  to  us, 
this  very  stipulation  in  her  own  treaty,  and  justified  the  vio 
lation  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  injurious  to  her  interest  that- 
British  property  should  be  secured  on  board  of  our  ships,  while 
French  property  was  insecure,  and  therefore  she  would  not 
observe  the  stipulations  of  her  treaty,  which  were  unreasona- 
blt  and  burthensome. 

But  we  will  suppose,  for  argument's  sake,!  that  the  princi 
ple  free  ships  free  goods  is  a  principle  of  publick  law,  altho* 
the  very  contrary  is  the  truth.  It  would  follow,  that  if  we 
permitted  one  of  the  belligerents  to  violate  it,  in  regard  to  us^ 
the  other  belligerent  would  have  the  same  right.  That  our 
submission  to  the  wrong  done  by  one,  would  give  to  the  oth 
er  a  right  to  commit  the  same  act.  This  we  acknowledge  to 
be  a  rule  of  right  reason,  derived  from  the  duty  of  neutrals  to 
deal  equally  between  the  belligerents,  not  withholding  from 
o«e  what  is  granted  to  the  other,  uor  imposiag  restraints  on 

t 


{     58     ] 

one,  not  imposed  on  the  other,  unless  in  execution  of  an  ante 
cedent  treaty.  But  should  either  of  the  belligerents  go  far 
ther  in  retaliation  than  the  original  wrong,  it  would  he  a  vio 
lation  of  our  rights  as  complete  as  the  primary  violation  by 
his  adversary,  and'would  (if  submitted  to  by  us)  give  that  ad 
versary  a  perfect  right  to  commit  the  same  acts.  It  is  pro 
per  to  note,  as  we  go  along,  that,  in  the  present  condition  of 
mankind,  the  word  neutral)  in  the  orders  and  decrees  of  the 
powers  at  war,  can  mean  only  American  ;  we  being  now  the 
only  neutrals  left  ;  if  indeed  we  can  be  called  neutral,  when 
France  seizes  and  confiscates  our  goods,  takes  and  destroys 
our  ships,  and  insists  that  we  shall  "  declare  war  against  her 

enemy, or " 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  appear  that  the  Berlin  De 
cree  was  not  founded  on  any  act  of  Great  Britain  submitted 
to  by  us,  and  that  if  we  had  permitted  a  violation  of  our 
rights,  in  a  manner  injurious  to  France,  she  could  not  thereby 
acquire  a  right  to  exceed  'he  measure  of  what  we  had  so 
submitted  to.  But  the  Berlin  Decree  not  only  exceeded  eve 
ry  thing  which  Britain  had  ever  done  or  pretended  to  do,  but 
whatever  had  been  previously  attempted,  as  far  as  our  infor 
mation  extends,  by  any  nation  in  modern  times.  When  this 
Decree  reached  London,  the  American  ministers  were  told 
frankly  and  distinctly, 

4  That  in  case  the  United  States  submitted  to  a  violation  of 
'  their  neutral  rights  by  France,  in  the  manner  contemplated 
'  by  that  Decree,  it  would  be  impossible  for  Great  Britain"  to 
<  respect  them.'  «• 

This  Decree  was  issued  at  Berlin  on  the  twenty-first  day 
of  November,  1806,  and  yet  the  Honourable  Senator  com 
plains  that  the  British  Orders,  consequent  on  our  submission 
to  France,  and  which  were  not  issued  till  November,  1807; 
were  sudden,  unexpected,  and  that  they  burst  all  at  once,  &c. 
It  is  true  some  correspondence  took  place  between  the  Ame 
rican  Minister  at  Paris  and  the  French  Ministers,  which  in 
duced  the  former  to  believe  the  Decree  was  not  to  take  ef 
fect  against  us.  The  President  declared  this  to  be  the  case, 
and  it  was  supposed  by  credulous  people  that  all  was  safe. 
Discreet  men,  however,  placed  little  confidence  in  half  way 
comments  of  Ministers,  at  variance  with  the  imperial  text. 
After  the  lapse  of  near  twelve  months,  viz.  on  the  24th  of 
September,  the  American  Minister  learnt  that  "  constructions 
injurious  to  the  United  States,  were  about  to  be  given  to  it," 
and  applied  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations  tor  informa 
tion.  To  this  the  Minister  replied,  on  the  7th  «i  October, 
thus: 


[     59     ] 

t  gIR — You  did  me  the  honour,  on  the  24th  of  September, 
«  to  request  me  to  send  you  some  explanations  as  to  the  exe- 
«  cution  of  the  Decree  of  Blockade  of  the  British  Islands 

*  against  vessels  of  the  United  States.      The  provisions  of  all 

*  the  regulations  and  treaties,  relative  to  a  state  of  blockade, 

*  have    appeared   applicable   to   the   existing  circumstances  ; 
«  and  it  results  from  the  explanations  which  have  been  ad- 

*  dressed   to   me  by   the  Imperial   Advocate  General   of  the 

*  Council  of  Prizes,  that  his  majesty  has  considered  every 

*  neutral  vessel  going  from  English  ports  with  cargoes  of 
''English  merchandise  or  of  English  origin  as  lawfully  seiz- 

*  able  by  French  armed  vessels." 

Without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  General  Armstrong 
was  duped  by  insidious  or  deceived  by  false  assertions,  it  is 
evident  that  the  decree  was  levelled  against  us.  Indeed,  it 
could  hit  nobody  else ;  for  as  Mr.  Champagny  tells  the  Gene 
ral,  in  the  same  letter,  "  the  principal  powers  of  Europe  (far 
from  protesting  against  its  provisions)  have  adopted  them." 
By  the  by,  this  reasoning,  addressed  to  us,  was  equally  deli 
cate  and  conclusive.  It  is  (in  other  words)  the  states  which 
ive  have  subdued  have  d-me  as  we  bid  them  ;  you  ought  to 
imitate  their  example.  The  right  of  Great-Britain  to  retal 
iate  this  Berlin  Decree,  if  not  resisted  by  us,  was  unquestion 
able.  To  have  been  a  quiet  •  spectator,  with  a  thousand  ships 
of  war  at  her  command,  and  permitted  neutrals  to  trade  with 
her  enemy  when  that  enemy  had  prohibited  them  from  trad 
ing  with  her,  under  pain  of  confiscation,  would  have  been 
an  extreme  of  folly.  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  she  was  pre 
cipitate  in  retaliating.  It  wanted  but  ten  days  of  a  year  from 
the  time  the  Berlin  Decree  was  issued,  to  the  date  of  her  Or 
ders.  Was  her  retaliation  severe  ?  Did  it  entrench  more  on 
our  rights  than  the  French  Decree  ?  Certainly  not.  Far  from 
prohibiting  our  trade  with  French  ports,  generally,  all  except 
those  of  Europe  were  left  open  to  us.  Far  from  making  im 
mediate  prize  of  vessels  bound  to  the  blockaded  ports,  full 
time  was  allowed  for  information.  Far  from  interdicting  the 
commerce  with  Europe,  absolutely,  it  was  allowed  under  cer 
tain  conditions.  Of  these  conditions  we  shall  not  say  much, 
although  much  has  been  said  by  the  Honourable  Senator.  He 
has  taken  occasion  to  indulge  in  declamations  on  British  li 
cense,  British  taxation  and  the  like,  declaring  that  if  we  sub 
mit  to  the  execution  of  those  orders,  we  become  Colonies  of 
England  :  but  not  reflecting  that  a  like  submission  to  the  se 
verer  French  Decree  must,  according  to  his  own  doctrine, 
baye  already  reduced  us  to  the  state  of  French  Provinces,  If 


[  eo  j 

England  had  the  right  to  inhibit  the  trade  absolutely,  she  had 
a  right  to  permit  it  conditionally.  If  she  had  not,  it  is  our 
business  to  resist  by  such  means  as  may  be  in  our  power.  In 
this  case  we  are  reduced  to  the  option  of  declaring  war  a- 
gainst  the  first  or  the  second  aggressor,  or  of  submitting  to 
both  :  for  we  hold  that  the  dignified  retirement  so  much  talk 
ed  of  is  an  actual  submission  to  both.  France  declares,  and 
is  joined  by  her  tributary  powers,  that  if  we  trade  with  Eng 
land  we  shall  be  made  prize  of  ;  and  England  declares  the 
same  thing  if  we  trade  with  France  and  her  tributary  pow 
ers,  comprising  in  effect  the  Continent  of  Europe.  We  lay 
an  Embargo  on  all  our  ships,  and  therefore,  in  obedience  to 
France,  we  decline  trading  with  England  ;  and,  in  obedience 
to  England,  we  decline  trading  with  the  Continent  of  Europe. 
So  much  for  the  dignity  of  our  retiring  system. 

Having  got  so  near  the  end  of  those  alternations  of  hostili 
ty,  which  the  Honourable  Senator  considers  as  sprouts  from 
fbe  root  of  the  rule  of  1756,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  give  a 
glance  at  the  last  twigs. 

The  Milan  Decree  of  the  17th  December  last,  in  retalia 
tion  of  the  British  Orders  of  the  1 1th  of  November  preceding, 
recites  (as  a  heinous  offence)  that  neutral  vessels  were  not 
only  subjected  to  search,  but  to  be  compulsorily  detained  in 
England,  and  even  to  hav*  a  lax  laid  on  them.  It  is  wor 
thy  of  remark  that  the  French  Emperor  could  not  discover, 
in  these  Orders,  all  that  confiscation  which  has  furnished  a 
doleful  paragraph  to  our  Honourable  Senator.  The  reason  of 
\vhich  we  take  to  be,  that  little  as  the  great  Napoleon  cares 
about  the  opinions  men  form  of  his  heart,  he  is  not  quite  so 
indifferent  to  what  they  may  think  of  his  understanding. 
Another  thing  worthy  of  remark  is,  that  the  French  Empe 
ror  seems  wholly  to  have  forgotten  how,  by  his  Berlin  De 
cree,  neutrals  trading  with  England  were  made  liable  to  con 
fiscation ;  and  condemns  in  terms  of  high  resentment  the  im 
position  of  a  tax  by  England  on  the  trade  of  neutrals  with 
hi;n  and  his  allies.  In  this  course  he  has  been  followed,  with 
perfect  exactness,  by  the  Honourable  Senator.  His  majesty 
then,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  confiscates  American  ves 
sels,  that  shall  have  submitted  to  be  searched  by  a  British 
man  of  war,  on  their  voyage  to  his  ports,  or  those  of  his  al 
lies.  This  mild  and  equitable  disposition  is  made  of  our 
prop-jay  l>y  his  imperial  majesty,  lest  the  English  should  avail 
th  -Tiselves  of  our  tolerance  "to  establish  the  infamous  princi 
ple  that  the  flag  of  a  nation  does  not  cover  goods."  8ut 
tiiej-4  fa*  iii.j^sty,  in  his  great  goodness,  declares  that  this 


t     61     3 

Decree  tf  shall  cease  to  have  any  effect  with  respect  to  all 
nations  who  shall  have  the  firmness  to  compel  the  English 
Government  to  respect  their  flag."  That  is  to  say,  he  will 
continue  to  make  prize  of  all  American  property  he  can  lay 
his  hands  on,  unless  we  go  to  war  with  England.  But,  says 
the  Honourable  Senator,  the  French  Emperor  has  not  declar 
ed  there  should  be  no  neutrals. 

One  would  think  the  language  of  this  Milan  Decree  suffi 
ciently  clear  and  distinct ;  whether  General  Armstrong  thought 
it  could  be  explained  away,  we  know  not.  His  correspon 
dence  has  been  withheld.  But  we  have  Mr.  Champagny's 
letter,  of  January,  which  mentions  different  notes  received 
from  the  general  and  laid  before  his  majesty.  In  his  answer 
it  is  said  : 

'  No  recourse  against  the  power  of  England  is  any  longer 

*  to  be  found  in  the  ordinary  means  of  repression.     In  cider 

*  to  annoy  her  it  is  become  necessary  to  turn  against  her  the 

*  arms  which  she  makes  use  of  herself. — The  United  States, 

*  more  than  any  power,  have  to  cemplain  of  the  aggressions  of 

*  England.     In  the  situation  in  which  England  has  placed  the 

*  continent,  especially  since  her  Decree  of  the  llth  Novem- 

*  ber,  his  Majesty  has  no  doubt  of  a  declaration  of  war  against 
'  her  by  the  United  States.     In  that  persuasion  his  Majesty, 

*  ready  to  consider  the  United  States  as  associated  with  the 

*  cause  of  all  the  powers  who  have  to  defend  themselves  a- 

*  gainst  England,  has  not  taken  any  definitive  measure  respect- 

*  ing  the  American  vessels  w7hjch  have  been  brought  into  his 
€  ports.     He  has  ordered  that  they  should  remain  sequestered, 

*  until  a  decision  may  be  had  thereon  according  to  the  disposi- 

*  tion  which  shall  have  been  expressed  by  the  government  of 

*  the  United  States.9 

"  Still  however,"  says  Adams,  "  his  Imperial  Majesty  has 
not  declared  there  shall  be  no  neutrals."  He  has  not  required 
that  we  should  shut  our  ports  against  the  English — No  :  He 
only  considers  us  at  war  with  his  enemy,  and  is  ready  to  con 
sider  us  as  associated  with  all  the  powers  whc  have  shut  their 
ports  against  the  English, and  in  the  mean  time,imf il  we  declare 
war  for  ourselves,  he  will  take  all  American  property  which 
comes  within  his  reach  ;  and  if  we  do  not  declare  war  a- 
gainst  England,  he  wil)  confiscate  it— that's  all.  So  far  is 
he  from  declaring  there  shall  be  no  neutrals,  that  he  will  on* 
ly  make  war  upon  us  if  we  do  not  make  war  upon  England 
— that's  all.  Il  we  choose  to  call  ourselves  neutral,  he  has  no 
sort  of  objection,  but  he  will  consider  and  treat  us  as  enemies 
—that's  all. 


[     62     ] 

And  now,  fellow  citizens,  having  gone  through  Vvith  our 
comments  OH  this  letter  of  Mr.  John  Q,.  Adams,  which  we 
consider  in  the  light  of  a  manifesto  by  our  administration,  it 
might  be  expected  that  we  should  endeavour  to  pour  into  your 
bosoms  all  that  indignation  which  swells  our  own.  But  we 
forbear.  If  there  be  still  any  true  born  American  who  can  ad 
here  to  the  rotten  cause  which  Mr.  Adams  has  espoused,  we 
leave  him  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Adams  and  his  associates.  And 
if  the  strong  sentiment  which  binds  us  to  our  country  would 
permit  us  to  see  without  extreme  concern,  much  less  to  wish, 
thrit  evil  should  befal  her,  we  might  wish  that  men  so  blind 
should  continue  subject  to  that  misnule,  u-ider  which  the  wealth 
of  America  h,.s  been  wasted,  her  dignity  prostrated,  her  re 
putation  lost,  her  prosperity  dried  up,  her  liberties  invaded, 
and  her  independence  sacrificed. 


Return  to  desk  from  which 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


SJun'SOFRF 


REC'D  UD 


YB  37410 


5<9G. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY  A  t 


